[RD] Berkeley Riots

[onejayhawk]

But don't you understand that if you let society crack down on white supremacists and nazis and other scummers that the next thing you know that society will crack down on people who voice their appreciation for bunnies and rainbows? Don't you see that as the obvious outcome since only actions matter and intent is too complex to be analyzed?

We need to all get out there and stand shoulder to shoulder with nazis, psychopaths, and geeks and support their oppressing, killing, and biting of live chickens...lest we lose our freedumbs.

Society can understand that those attempting the crackdown are worse than the "scummers" they are attacking. You have become what you claim to oppose, or rather, antifa has become the out -of-control hate group in the situation.

J

 

[innonimatu]

The overt white supremacists weren't an unfortunate fringe presence, though. They made up a sizeable portion of the rally, perhaps the majority. These rest of the rally weren't unfortunate dupes, they were knowingly aligning themselves with overt white supremacist, whatever the depths of their own attachment to the ideology, self-concious saying "these are the guys I want to have my back". Being a Vichyist rather than an outright Quisling does not put you on the right side of history.

This isn't France or Norway 1941. Those white supremacists have not, as far as we know, actually attacked anyone yet. They are citizens of the same country, with a different opinion. They were not born with that opinion and are not fated to die with that opinion?

Why brand them an enemy to destroy rather that an adversary to turn? Is not the role of politics in peace time to create opportunities to win over your fellow citizens? It has not yet become a civil war, and democracy has not been abolished yet, has it? Then play politics properly according to the situation. Win over your adversaries if you can, and win over the population at large. Use politics to persuade rather than to play member of a tribe.

This is a very nefarious way of doing politics, and in an insidious way: if it is only "us versus them", battle lines already drawn, then the largest side in the present wins, and there is no room for evolution. There is no room to aim at achieving a big change from the status quo because you start by assuming that the status quo is set in stone already, the adversaries cannot change, only be battled. But you are not going to actually fight a civil war and kill them, so what does this style of divisive politics achieve? Nothing? No. It achieves the maintenance of the present status quo.

"Bread and games", used to be the recipe. Now its identity politics and games. "Bread rations" can even be gradually cut while people are distracted with their "alt" this and that divisions...

I used to do exactly what you are doing, and like you, I thought that it gave me some moral high ground/made me more "fair minded" or some other such nonsense... but I discovered a long time ago that defending positions you don't agree with is pointless, as it puts winds in the sails of things you don't support and it just gets you lumped in with the unsavory position even though you feel you're trying to protect some high-minded abstract ideal. I would defend all the conservative positions in class and it made all the Republican guys like me and want to sit next to me and hang out with me because they thought I was Republican, since I was "defending free speech" and so forth... but then when they would eventually find out that I was an Obama supporter, most of them grew cold towards me, and would stop talking to me, stopped sitting with me in class, etc.

Meanwhile all the liberals in class who I would have more common ground with ideologically, were wary and suspicious of me because, they thought I was Republican. So I basically needlessly isolated myself and had to then go build new relationships from scratch... I then realized that the whole exercise was just a bunch of virtue signalling on my part. But worst of all... and I have to admit that I didn't realize this on my own, one of my Deans/Professors had to point this out... what I was doing in class by always playing devil's advocate, taking the conservative/Republican/ etc, side... was giving positions that I actually opposed, propaganda to justify them. Basically I was supplying a "See the black guy agrees with this so it can't possibly be racially prejudiced, etc" to the numerous people who love to use this type of argument to defend their prejudiced positions. When she told me that, I realized that my virtue signaling just wasn't worth it.

I understand your point, I also play devil's advocate often. But if you do it so that people actually consider the motives of their political adversaries, it is a good thing to do. It does not mean you endorse the course of action those adversaries decided to take, you have your own opinions to defend, drew conclusions different from those they did. And you know this, of course. Unless you can understand them and talk to them, you will not be able to do politics at all. You'll instead be just a peon on a battle (us versus them, repress of be repressed, the option of convincing the other side is out of question) if you participate at all, with the decisions (the politics) being directed by others. And nothing but distractions to be achieved.

 

[plarq]

so what does this style of divisive politics achieve? Nothing? No. It achieves the maintenance of the present status quo.

QFT.

Society can understand that those attempting the crackdown are worse than the "scummers" they are attacking. You have become what you claim to oppose, or rather, antifa has become the out -of-control hate group in the situation.

J

That is one of naivism I found in politics. If we, the general populace do not agree with "scummers", we would not defend them. It is the jobs of lawyers and civil right groups such as ACLU to do the job, not us.

Edit: while I am at it. There was once a naive political vision about non-partisan politics where everybody sings Kumbaya and patriotically defends USA and puts any differences aside when working towards a common goal.

That was George Washington's view.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Society can understand that those attempting the crackdown are worse than the "scummers" they are attacking. You have become what you claim to oppose, or rather, antifa has become the out -of-control hate group in the situation.

J

Or so says the scummers and the scum who defend them.

 

[Berzerker]

That's another strawman. You asked me about my position not Tim's.

Why is that a straw man? Well, explain why the first was a straw man while you're at it. I didn't say you agreed with Tim, I explained his position and asked if you agreed with it. Now if I was asking about your position (and I was) why did you advise me on what to do?

You asked me if I was suggesting you should:
1.defend the free speech of people I like; and
2. attack the free speech of people I dont like

My response was quite clear. Yes to #1.

"Defend the free speech of whomever you like."

Sounded like you were advising me but I didn't want to assume that was your position, sounded like a dismissal of my question. There weren't two parts to the question. The reason we're debating this is because protesters were attacked by counter protesters. Some people here are okay with attacking the protesters.

I never suggested you do #2 so asking me to defend that position is strawmanning me. You say "but Tim said!"... I'm not Tim. Take it up with him... or don't.

I didn't accuse you of taking that position, I explained that was Tim's position and asked if "I" should agree with him. You didn't agree to attacking protesters and I never said you did. I can ask though, cant I? Since we agree on that matter, why aren't you debating the people with whom you dont agree? I didn't get the impression you cared if the protesters were attacked.

I fully acknowledge the rights of scummers. I'm not carrying their water (unless I'm being paid to do so). My suggestion to you was just that... don't carry scummer's water. Let them carry their own water for their own scummines. The OJ/Cosby/Bellichek/Brady analogy was an illustration of that point and you know it, so it is very intellectually dishonest of you to try to characterize it as a strawman.

A full 7 words... Right to what? Protest without armed counter protesters showing up to fight? The scummers are the canaries in the free speech coal mine. Defending the free speech of only the people you like weakens it, opponents can point to the double standard to 'justify' their attacks on free speech. "They do it too" is the argument by and against hypocrites and thats how freedom loses ground.

Your analogy compared defending the free speech of right wingers to defending a rapist and a murderer (alleged ). I think I'm allowed to highlight that flaw without being intellectually dishonest. You didn't need the analogy (I try avoiding them because of all the apples and oranges and tomatoes), "scummers" is self explanatory. I'd still defend the free speech of the people you mentioned, that wouldn't mean I endorse what they did... allegedly.

I dont know what lawyers have to do with it, free speech belongs to the people and its up to us to keep it intact. Does the ACLU endorse Nazism when they defend the free speech of adherents? In your hunt for intellectually dishonest arguments did you notice that one? I thought you endorsed disliking people who defend the free speech of people you dont like, do you dislike the ACLU?

I used to do exactly what you are doing, and like you, I thought that it gave me some moral high ground/made me more "fair minded" or some other such nonsense... but I discovered a long time ago that defending positions you don't agree with is pointless, as it puts winds in the sails of things you don't support and it just gets you lumped in with the unsavory position even though you feel you're trying to protect some high-minded abstract ideal. I would defend all the conservative positions in class and it made all the Republican guys like me and want to sit next to me and hang out with me because they thought I was Republican, since I was "defending free speech" and so forth... but then when they would eventually find out that I was an Obama supporter, most of them grew cold towards me, and would stop talking to me, stopped sitting with me in class, etc.

You mean they weren't racists? Ideology ran deeper than skin color? The sin condemned most often by Jesus was hypocrisy... I'm not a Christian but I can agree with his rational, and I do... So I try to remove hypocrisy from my ideology. And since I'm not beholden to (or even like) either side, partisan politics doesn't lead me into temptation. I have the luxury of criticizing people who attack free speech without concerning myself with what the left or right thinks. I get called a Nazi sympathizer by the Tim's of the world and an American-hating commie by supporters of the Pledge of Allegiance and flag worshipers. I can live with that, one less double standard to interfere with my sleep.

Meanwhile all the liberals in class who I would have more common ground with ideologically, were wary and suspicious of me because, they thought I was Republican. So I basically needlessly isolated myself and had to then go build new relationships from scratch... I then realized that the whole exercise was just a bunch of virtue signalling on my part. But worst of all... and I have to admit that I didn't realize this on my own, one of my Deans/Professors had to point this out... what I was doing in class by always playing devil's advocate, taking the conservative/Republican/ etc, side... was giving positions that I actually opposed, propaganda to justify them. Basically I was supplying a "See the black guy agrees with this so it can't possibly be racially prejudiced, etc" to the numerous people who love to use this type of argument to defend their prejudiced positions. When she told me that, I realized that my virtue signaling just wasn't worth it.

Reading the first part of that led me to wonder how the liberal kids reacted. I've seen the term virtue signaling but still haven't looked it up. I assume its a replacement for political correctness. The audience for my signals is apparently quite small, far too many on the left and right do not see free speech as virtuous. Even you could muster only a few words in it's defense, are you still virtue signaling?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sounded like you were advising me but I didn't want to assume that was your position, sounded like a dismissal of my question. There weren't two parts to the question. The reason we're debating this is because protesters were attacked by counter protesters. Some people here are okay with attacking the protesters.



I didn't accuse you of taking that position, I explained that was Tim's position and asked if "I" should agree with him. You didn't agree to attacking protesters and I never said you did. I can ask though, cant I? Since we agree on that matter, why aren't you debating the people with whom you dont agree? I didn't get the impression you cared if the protesters were attacked.

Your explanation of my position was as much a bald faced lie as your "factual statement" about what happened with the protesters and counter protesters. Your attempts to "discuss" in the boundaries presented by these false premises are nothing but attempts to create an environment of malice.

 

[plarq]

Or so says the scummers and the scum who defend them.

That is an inaccurate, "guilty by association" statement.

 

[Berzerker]

Your explanation of my position was as much a bald faced lie as your "factual statement" about what happened with the protesters and counter protesters. Your attempts to "discuss" in the boundaries presented by these false premises are nothing but attempts to create an environment of malice.

You told me protesters deserve to be run over if they're at a protest with neo-Nazis and you changed that to they're taking a risk. Go ahead, post what you said. Lets see who is lying...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That is an inaccurate, "guilty by association" statement.

Not at all. The scummers, and the scum who defend them, both say that "Antifa is an out of control hate group."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You told me protesters deserve to be run over if they're at a protest with neo-Nazis and you changed that to they're taking a risk. Go ahead, post what you said. Lets see who is lying...

You. That was easy. And not unexpected.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why is that a straw man? Well, explain why the first was a straw man while you're at it.

I explained the first strawman (and the second) in post #717..

Sounded like you were advising me but I didn't want to assume that was your position, sounded like a dismissal of my question. There weren't two parts to the question. The reason we're debating this is because protesters were attacked by counter protesters. Some people here are okay with attacking the protesters.

I can see why you couldn't tell whether I was answering your question or dismissing it. I should have italicized "you like" that would have made it clearer. I actually did initially, but then deleted the italics as I thought it came off too snarky... oh well. As for there being two parts... on this we disagree. there were definitely two parts because I broke it up into two part without changing any of your words. If you can't see that the question had two parts, we can just agree to disagree on that point and move on. As for the reason "we're" debating... you can certainly say why you're debating, but you can't tell me why or what I'm debating. I know what I'm debating and why.

Since we agree on that matter, why aren't you debating the people with whom you dont agree?

See my above response. I am debating the person I don't agree with, about the point that I feel is most important to me to debate at this particular moment.

The scummers are the canaries in the free speech coal mine. Defending the free speech of only the people you like weakens it, opponents can point to the double standard to 'justify' their attacks on free speech. "They do it too" is the argument by and against hypocrites and that's how freedom loses ground.

First, I reject this premise. Nazis are not the vanguard of free speech. Second, free speech does not exist in a vacuum. You aren't just defending "free speech", you're defending Nazis speech. In other words you're defending Nazis, which you have every right to do, but I just flatly reject the premise that you can defend "free speech" in the abstract with no context given to who or what the speech is. You can defend Nazis by defending their free speech rights, but that is still defending Nazis. You have to own it all. Defending Nazi's speech is defending Nazis. And you're not jumping in the way of a gun to prevent a killing here... its just arguing on the internet. So the whole coal mine/canary stuff is a little too rich frankly... the republic will survive if Nazis have to carry their own water.

I know where you are coming from... you are probably thinking that "Hey if I can defend the free speech of the worst of the worst, then what a great champion of free speech I am! I so pure, so non-ideological!" then you pat yourself on the back for not being like all those other hypocrites... which brings me to "virtue signaling". That's virtue signaling or at least one form of it, as I understand the term. See the term itself is new to me and I didn't even know that term when I had that realization from my Dean's advice... but that was what I realized I was doing... I was taking a position purely for the vanity of showing how morally superior and high-minded and fair and clever I was... which we now refer to as virtue signaling.

 

[onejayhawk]

That is one of naivism I found in politics. If we, the general populace do not agree with "scummers", we would not defend them. It is the jobs of lawyers and civil right groups such as ACLU to do the job, not us. Edit: while I am at it. There was once a naive political vision about non-partisan politics where everybody sings Kumbaya and patriotically defends USA and puts any differences aside when working towards a common goal. That was George Washington's view.

More Thomas Jefferson.

The point of scummers is that the general populous does not identify them as such, only a segment does. That segment blame their problems on the scummers and attack them verbally and, eventually, physically. Change "scummers" to "Jews" and you can see the problem. By attempting to fight fascists, antifa has becomes the enemy.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

More Thomas Jefferson.

The point of scummers is that the general populous does not identify them as such, only a segment does. That segment blame their problems on the scummers and attack them verbally and, eventually, physically. Change "scummers" to "Jews" and you can see the problem. By attempting to fight fascists, antifa has becomes the enemy.

J

This argument is complete... stuff you wouldn't want to get on your clothes...

Another way of putting it... Do you consider the KKK to be "scummers" Yes or no? Do you consider Nazis to be "scummers", Yes or No?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

More Thomas Jefferson.

The point of scummers is that the general populous does not identify them as such, only a segment does.

J

Guess what...there was a day when "Nazis are bad" was pretty much universally agreed on. Too bad you apologists weren't around at the time to get your just deserts.

Moderator Action: Calling for or otherwise threatening other users with violence or even bemoaning that violence does not befall them is unacceptable - warned. - ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[onejayhawk]

This argument is complete... stuff you wouldn't want to get on your clothes...

Another way of putting it... Do you consider the KKK to be "scummers" Yes or no? Do you consider Nazis to be "scummers", Yes or No?

Which KKK? The ones we have now, which you can count on fingers and toes, or the enforcement wing of the Democratic party pre-WW II period. The first is pathetic and the second is a straw man. Nazis are another impolite fiction in today's society. So, who are you really referring to? The closest you can find to either group calls themselves antifascist. Ironic, no?

J

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I just flatly reject the premise that you can defend "free speech" in the abstract with no context given to who or what the speech is.

In other words, "I flatly reject the premise of free speech".

 

[Senethro]

British law enforcement takes neo-nazi infiltration of institutions seriously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41161233

Can you try to imagine for a bit how it looks to everyone else when white people in America treat neo-nazis and the far right as only a hypothetical problem?

 

[metalhead]

More Thomas Jefferson.

The point of scummers is that the general populous does not identify them as such, only a segment does. That segment blame their problems on the scummers and attack them verbally and, eventually, physically. Change "scummers" to "Jews" and you can see the problem. By attempting to fight fascists, antifa has becomes the enemy.

J

Keep carrying water for white supremacists. It's not a very good look, but it's certainly the one we're used to from you.

The fact that you equate a religion (just so happens to be Judaism) with white supremacy in trying to make a point kind of shows your true colors.

 

[Bamspeedy]

British law enforcement takes neo-nazi infiltration of institutions seriously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41161233

Can you try to imagine for a bit how it looks to everyone else when white people in America treat neo-nazis and the far right as only a hypothetical problem?

Maybe my memory is failing me, since I'm getting older, but I honestly thought I remember a news story of American law enforcement reacting in the same way as your story of British law enforcement (in the punch a nazi thread?). Though I think how people reacted to that bit of news is different depending on which side of the pond it happens in.

Edit:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/punching-nazis.609891/page-35#post-14658393

 

[Senethro]

Maybe my memory is failing me, since I'm getting older, but I honestly thought I remember a news story of American law enforcement reacting in the same way as your story of British law enforcement (in the punch a nazi thread?). Though I think how people reacted to that bit of news is different depending on which side of the pond it happens in.

I tried a spot of googling and apparently its been policy among American recruiters and trainers for the past decade to try and spot neo-nazi tattoos and other warning signs of ties to groups that it would be undesirable if they were to gain tactical knowledge and training. Sounds like some event got them concerned somewhere along the line.