[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Lexicus]

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

Can you not answer my question about the consequences of the violence or...?

 

[NovaKart]

So people are actually justifying violent protests to prevent someone from speaking at a university.

 

[BvBPL]

Can you not answer my question about the consequences of the violence or...?

I missed that inquiry and needed a minute to respond fully.

Determining the virtue of an action based upon the consequences of that action fails when we act in a situation of imperfect knowledge. Because we cannot know the ultimate consequences of an action in such a situation, we can never determine the virtue of the action from a consequentialist standpoint. This means that in situations of imperfect knowledge, taking a consequentialist standpoint provides no guidance as to how one should act.

All situations are situations of imperfect knowledge.

As such, consequentialist ethics provide no rules for how one should act in the present. Because consequentialism only bases itself upon the consequences, which can only be known after the action, it provides little guidance as to how one should act in the present. It is, therefore, an ineffective system for determining how one should act in the present.

A system that does not provide guidance to how one should act in the present is largely ineffective as an ethical system.

Much better are deontological or virtue-based ethical system. In virtue ethics, the question becomes not “what is the result of this action,” but “what would a virtuous person do in this situation?” Unlike the focus on the past in consequentialism, virtue based ethics provides guidance on how parties should act in the instant. It is therefore much more useful as an ethical system.

The virtuous person only resorts to violence when all other means have failed (this is not the only rule for justifiable violence, but it is a threshold inquiry). Here, that did not occur because the violent rioting happened prior to the exhaustion of non-violent means.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So people are actually justifying violent protests to prevent someone from speaking at a university.

When the someone is proud of having instigated violence against people he considers acceptable targets during previous speaking engagements, yes, I am justifying violent protests against allowing him to speak at a university. In fact I could easily justify putting him in a condition where his jaw would be wired shut and his typing apparatti encased in plaster for a period of time, and could arrange that circumstance for him without even a slight twinge of conscience given half a chance.

 

[Lexicus]

I missed that inquiry and needed a minute to respond fully.

Okay, then we cannot even argue this point because I think deontological ethics are silly (and find your point that because we never have perfect knowledge, consequentialism is completely bunk to be equally silly). We'll just be talking past each other.

EDIT: @Timsup2nothin, we now see that your summary was essentially correct. The complete rejection of consequentalism means that BvBPL is essentially stuck believing that breaking a few windows and torching a car is morally equivalent to murdering six million people in gas chambers, because a virtuous person wouldn't do either of those things.

 

[BvBPL]

When the someone is proud of having instigated violence against people he considers acceptable targets during previous speaking engagements, yes, I am justifying violent protests against allowing him to speak at a university. In fact I could easily justify putting him in a condition where his jaw would be wired shut and his typing apparatti encased in plaster for a period of time, and could arrange that circumstance for him without even a slight twinge of conscience given half a chance.

How have your experiences with the criminal justice system affected your stance on justifiable violence?

Okay, then we cannot even argue this point because I think deontological ethics are silly. We'll just be talking past each other.

For the sake of accuracy, I'd like to point out I was addressing virtue ethics and not deontologicalism.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The virtuous person only resorts to violence when all other means have failed (this is not the only rule for justifiable violence, but it is a threshold inquiry). Here, that did not occur because the violent rioting happened prior to the exhaustion of non-violent means.

You can't bring a gun in here.

Put that gun away.

Stop loading that gun.

Don't point it at me.

Okay, that does it. I've exhausted peaceful protests and now I am resorting to justified violence by bleeding all over you!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How have your experiences with the criminal justice system affected your stance on justifiable violence?

Minimally. My views on justified violence were primarily formed while I was in the navy, which was long before I had any close encounter with the criminal justice system.

 

[Lexicus]

For the sake of accuracy, I'd like to point out I was addressing virtue ethics and not deontologicalism.

Eh. I see them as being essentially the same thing, because 'what would a virtuous person do in this situation' implicitly means there are a set of rules one must follow in order to be virtuous.

 

[BvBPL]

They are both more similar to each other than either is to consequentialism, that’s for sure.

Also, it is not that consequentialism is worthless, nor is that virtue ethics is perfect. All ethical systems are useful to some degree and all are imperfect in their own ways. However, when you asked me about my views on the consequence of the violence I had to step out and explain that consequentialism is not an ethical system that I personally find particularly useful in these cases.

To answer your question about the consequences of the violence from factual standpoint, Dan Adamini’s post about needing “another Kent State,” was a result of the violence. Adamini’s post demonstrates how violence on one side breeds violence on the other. The only way to escape the cycle is to lay down arms.

 

[Lexicus]

However, when you asked me about my views on the consequence of the violence I had to step out and explain that consequentialism is not an ethical system that I personally find particularly useful in these cases.

What I am gathering from this is that you recognize no moral difference between a protest that breaks some windows and burns some cars, and one that kills thirty people. If that's not a correct reading of your position, then please explain further.

To answer your question about the consequences of the violence from factual standpoint, Dan Adamini’s post about needing “another Kent State,” was a result of the violence. Adamini’s post demonstrates how violence on one side breeds violence on the other. The only way to escape the cycle is to lay down arms.

And I think this is incorrect because history demonstrates that authoritarian bootlickers will call for deadly violence against protesters and dissenters regardless of what the latter do. In the larger context of this thread, I find it both absurd and dangerous to suggest that Nazis only advocate for violence in response to perceived acts of "liberal" or "leftist" violence.

 

[BvBPL]

What I am gathering from this is that you recognize no moral difference between a protest that breaks some windows and burns some cars, and one that kills thirty people. If that's not a correct reading of your position, then please explain further.

I'm substantially less concerned about damage to property and much more concerned about violence against people, like the firebombing of the police in Berkeley last week at the riot.

In the larger context of this thread, I find it both absurd and dangerous to suggest that Nazis only advocate for violence in response to perceived acts of "liberal" or "leftist" violence.

Anybody would find that absurd.

 

[NovaKart]

Judging from I've read about this guy I think his threat of violence is exaggerated and some of the arguments here hyperbolic.

I'm not 100% on that so maybe some people can persuade me otherwise.

I do wonder if some people have been worked up into a frenzy based on exaggerated stories as often happens.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm substantially less concerned about damage to property and much more concerned about violence against people, like the firebombing of the police in Berkeley last week at the riot.

Which police were firebombed? Was anyone seriously injured? Is the answer no? Then why are we "substantially concerned" with this riot at all?

 

[BvBPL]

Members of the BPD were firebombed and attacked with fireworks. I’ve seen reports of between “two or three” and six people were injured, but I don’t know how severely.

The BPD deserve props for their handling of the violence.

 

[Lexicus]

From the lack of trumpeting of the fact anywhere that I can see, I highly doubt any of the injuries were serious. A CNN article saw fit to mention a woman being pepper-sprayed in the face, the only injury that was actually spelled out. This seems to me a reasonable price to pay for disrupting Milo.

Really though anything that happened is ultimately the university's fault for inviting the guy there in the first place. Bad move.

 

[BvBPL]

Injury and violence isn’t a price to be paid. UC Davis demonstrated last month that one can effectively stymie Yiannopoulos without injury.

 

[Bootstoots]

Judging from I've read about this guy I think his threat of violence is exaggerated and some of the arguments here hyperbolic.

I'm not 100% on that so maybe some people can persuade me otherwise.

I do wonder if some people have been worked up into a frenzy based on exaggerated stories as often happens.

It depends on how credible it was that he would actually out closeted trans people or undocumented immigrants, presumably by knowing about their internet identities. The reality-distortion field around him is strong enough that I have no idea whether this is something he credibly threatened, or whether it's something that appeared and got amplified in left-wing social media.

The case at Wisconsin seems to have involved someone who was already in a public dispute against the university and so could be said to already be out. I'm not sure if he's done anything worse.

 

[Lexicus]

Injury and violence isn’t a price to be paid. UC Davis demonstrated last month that one can effectively stymie Yiannopoulos without injury.

UC Davis demonstrated that some people who invite Milo are smarter than others, and can see the cards before they're actually played. At Berkeley, they actually had to be played. That's the only difference.

 

[BvBPL]

The difference relevant to this conversation is the violence.