[RD] Berkeley Riots

[metalhead]

It's not meant as "well the other side does it too", but as a note that the problem is that way too many (and popular) speakers on such issues are borderline moronic and/or trolls, so the Entire debate perpetuates such issues. Ie this isn't a one-off, with Milo being the one problem you have to solve. Others will take his position if he is banned from speaking.

It is like focusing on a person having the flu, or even ebola, when you allow other people with ebola variants in the same room already, and their audience also has ebola, etc.

Well if that's the case, then you don't need speakers espousing those views on college campuses, period. And that goes for either side, of any issue - if you can't book people who can speak intelligently on an issue and invite probing questions about their views, then you shouldn't hold an event. I don't think it does anyone any good to have unintelligent trolls speaking at official events on college campuses. Like I said, they can go speak on a street corner if they just want to spout trolling nonsense, and then they have to deal with the consequences of being unintelligent trolls.

The issue at hand is the use of violence in protests.

That's an issue, but I'd say there can be more than one issue in a thread at a given time.

If damage to property prevented much greater harm coming to the undocumented and/or trans student(s) at Berkeley, then it was totally worth it. Bank of America will somehow find a way to survive the damage at its branch.

 

[BvBPL]

If damage to property prevented much greater harm coming to the undocumented and/or trans student(s) at Berkeley, then it was totally worth it. Bank of America will somehow find a way to survive the damage at its branch.

That’s a garbage justification for violence in this case.
For one, there is zero indication that the violence was geared towards protecting students or that it in fact protected students. Nonviolent demonstrations have proven in the past to be very effective at stopping people similar to Yiannopoulos and were effective here. So even if we accepted your spurious ethical logic, it still fails in this case.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That’s a garbage justification for violence in this case.

Said the guy who frankly doesn't care whether those "illegals and deviants" get protected or not...again.

 

[BvBPL]

Don't assign me views I do not profess.

 

[Lexicus]

Said the guy who frankly doesn't care whether those "illegals and deviants" get protected or not...again.

Quick question, what's prompting this 'frankly'?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Don't assign me views I do not profess.

Then quit demonstrating views you do not profess.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Quick question, what's prompting this 'frankly'?

Frankly, it's a pointless affectation I recently picked up from somewhere.

 

[Lexicus]

Frankly, it's a pointless affectation I recently picked up from somewhere.

No, my question is what, specifically, did BvBPL say?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, my question is what, specifically, did BvBPL say?

BvBPL has repeatedly trivialized the benefits (protecting people) in his condemnation of the violence as "not justified." When I suggested that his reason for such trivialization was that as long as the people protected didn't include him he was fine with them not being protected he denied that. Now he has denied that his reason is because of the "nature" of the specific people who were protected. I'm hoping that in eliciting these denials I will eventually get him to recognize that his actions do stem from some cause that when it is put directly in front of him he recognizes as distasteful. Hope springs eternal.

 

[metalhead]

That’s a garbage justification for violence in this case.
For one, there is zero indication that the violence was geared towards protecting students or that it in fact protected students. Nonviolent demonstrations have proven in the past to be very effective at stopping people similar to Yiannopoulos and were effective here. So even if we accepted your spurious ethical logic, it still fails in this case.

You're trying to bifurcate things from one another in assigning cause and effect, but that's absurd. Peaceful protest is actually not that good at keeping people from speaking, because a determined speaker will A. like the publicity, and B. not have any reason not to speak just because there are protesters about. Violence or at least an imminent threat of violence is needed, because a speaker is not typically urged to cancel unless the organizers are unable to guarantee the security of the person being protested if they go on and speak as planned. There is zero doubt that the peaceful route had been tried and tried again prior to the night of the event, obviously to no avail.

You kind of have to live in a fantasy world to believe that peaceful protest is a means for achieving immediate results. You accomplish FAR more by starting to break things.

 

[BvBPL]

BvBPL has repeatedly trivialized the benefits (protecting people) in his condemnation of the violence as "not justified."

That is complete and total BS. Taking a principled stand on the issue of violence in this case does not mean at all that I have trivialized the difficulties of the people in question.
You should be ashamed that you are now resting your rickety justifications for violence on a bunch of lies you just made up.

You're trying to bifurcate things from one another in assigning cause and effect, but that's absurd.

Rather, I think you did that, or opened the door to it, by stating the action was justified by its (apparent but not actual) result. Here, the action had nothing to do with the result because peaceful protests are effective at exactly this issue.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That is complete and total BS. Taking a principled stand on the issue of violence in this case does not mean at all that I have trivialized the difficulties of the people in question.
You should be ashamed that you are now resting your rickety justifications for violence on a bunch of lies you just made up.

Please explain how "the potential consequences to those people does not justify the expense incurred by Bank of America" isn't trivializing the threat to their well being.

I'm pretty immune to public shaming, by the way. You'll have to do something more to change my opinion or my approach.

 

[Lexicus]

Rather, I think you did that, or opened the door to it, by stating the action was justified by its (apparent but not actual) result. Here, the action had nothing to do with the result because peaceful protests are effective at exactly this issue.

That doesn't follow logically, though. Just because P and X can both cause Q, doesn't mean that P didn't cause it in any given case.

I think what you mean to argue is that since peaceful protest can work, violent protest is always unnecessary (itself dubious because not all cases are the same), because it doesn't follow that if peaceful protest works, violent protest cannot have worked.

Of course, I've noticed that much protest that is praised after-the-fact as nonviolent is really just whitewashed. As this smart guy put it:

Establishment liberals only began to sing the praises of Dr. King when they were quite sure that he was dead.

The typical example of this is MLK being held up by moderate liberal types (and even sometimes by reactionary conservatives, ) as a model of protesting without making white people feel the least bit uncomfortable. And as @Timsup2nothin has pointed out MLK is often praised without any mention of the context in which he operated. One of the things that gave his arguments some urgency was the fact that Malcolm X and many others were out there talking in no uncertain terms about taking back some of the stuff whitey stole.

Taking a principled stand on the issue of violence

Oh is that what we're now calling it when we criticize people who sent Milo running away with his tail between his legs, but refrain from criticizing Milo at all?

 

[BvBPL]

That doesn't follow logically, though. Just because P and X can both cause Q, doesn't mean that P didn't cause it in any given case.

I think what you mean to argue is that since peaceful protest can work, violent protest is always unnecessary (itself dubious because not all cases are the same), because it doesn't follow that if peaceful protest works, violent protest cannot have worked.

Thank you, that’s a great way to put. Building off that, violence in such a case is unjustified because violence is only justified, if ever, after all non-violent means have been exhausted. As such, proceeding with violent action prior to the completion of non-violent action, as occurred here, lacks justification because the non-violent means were not exhausted.

Oh is that what we're now calling it when we criticize people who sent Milo running away with his tail between his legs, but refrain from criticizing Milo at all?

There is no need to make me criticize someone in order to justify my principles.

That said, I don’t have any problem saying Yiannopoulos was wrong.

 

[BvBPL]

Please explain how "the potential consequences to those people does not justify the expense incurred by Bank of America" isn't trivializing the threat to their well being.

I'm not going to explain a quote I didn't say.

 

[Lexicus]

That said, I don’t have any problem saying Yiannopoulos was wrong.

You have no problem saying it, but saying it doesn't actually do anything, which is kind of the point of this thread and, I think, the nub of disagreement here.

I'm not going to explain a quote I didn't say.

So let's examine this a little, shall we? You have continually said that the violence here was unjustified, I don't think I'm doing your argument a disservice or putting words in your mouth by saying that. Unless you want to take the stance that all violence is morally indistinguishable, an examination of whether the violence was justified should include an investigation of the consequences of the violence, right? So what exactly were the consequences of the violence here?

 

[metalhead]

Rather, I think you did that, or opened the door to it, by stating the action was justified by its (apparent but not actual) result. Here, the action had nothing to do with the result because peaceful protests are effective at exactly this issue.

No, now this is clearly spurious logic. Peaceful protests CAN keep people from speaking, but they certainly don't work every time, right? For your logic to be correct, that you can credit the peaceful protesters, but not assign any credit to the "violent" ones, then you would have to show that peaceful protest works 100% of the time. Otherwise, you cannot conclude that the peaceful protests worked as intended and the "violent" protesters didn't have anything to do with the decision to cancel the event. That's of course assuming you can say that each form of protest being done at the same location can somehow each exert its own pressure, rather than considering the pressure both exert together.

I also question the premise that peaceful protest is at all efficacious at cancelling an event in real time. Typically, if college administrators are going to give in to peaceful pressure and cancel something, they do it well ahead of time in response to pressure that students put on the administration. They don't defy that pressure and then change their mind when people show up to protest peacefully. In fact it wouldn't make any sense for them to give in at that point, because a peaceful protest is already expected and baked into the denial of requests to cancel the event.

Milo was rushed out a side door and whisked away from the area. That is not a reaction one sees to a peaceful group of protesters.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not going to explain a quote I didn't say.

You don't actually need to. Pretty much everyone can see that it is the gist of your position, so you are clearly revealed already.

 

[BvBPL]

You have no problem saying it, but saying it doesn't actually do anything, which is kind of the point of this thread and, I think, the nub of disagreement here.

The point of non-violent protest is that saying and speech does quite a lot indeed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The point of non-violent protest is that saying and speech does quite a lot indeed.

Said the guy who has no particular investment in whether the protest works or not.

There is no such thing as successful non violent protest, because sure as night follows day if you start looking like you will actually be successful whoever you are protesting against will start cracking heads before they just kiss your butt.