[RD] Berkeley Riots

[metalhead]

I feel like you're using the violent people - a small minority - to cover for the larger issue, which is that if you want to foster engagement on campus, you don't invite people like Milo to speak.

It doesn't follow logically that if the sin here is refusing to engage, that the protesters are the ones to blame. The people who invited someone for the purpose of trolling, as opposed to engage, are the ones at fault under that rubric. The people calling it out are the virtuous ones.

 

[BvBPL]

How to conduct a meaningful dialogue with others is a pretty broad topic. Nonviolence is but one element within that topic, but it is a critical threshold issue. Without nonviolence, none of the other parts matter.

 

[Kyriakos]

A point I have raised repeatedly, which has been simply ignored by BvBPL and was brushed aside once by luiz.



"A number" being....one? Afghanistan was/is a ****show, but obliterated? No.

Afganistan is also ruined, it is just that it was ruined before too. With Iraq it is yugely more obvious.

And a few years later, post-W, Libya and Syria are ruined.

 

[metalhead]

How to conduct a meaningful dialogue with others is a pretty broad topic. Nonviolence is but one element within that topic, but it is a critical threshold issue. Without nonviolence, none of the other parts matter.

And the vast majority of those protesting were nonviolent. It's quite illogical to ascribe violence, or the sanctioning of violence, to the broader group of people who merely wanted to protest the event.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Afganistan is also ruined, it is just that it was ruined before too. With Iraq it is yugely more obvious.

For the N-th time... The adjective of YUGE is "Bigly"

In any case... is your point that Condi should or should not have been protested?

 

[BvBPL]

It's quite illogical to ascribe violence, or the sanctioning of violence, to the broader group of people who merely wanted to protest the event.

Which is why I'm not doing that.

 

[Kyriakos]

For the N-th time... The adjective of YUGE is "Bigly"

In any case... is your point that Condi should or should not have been protested?

I think that Condi is bigly ( ) worse than Milo. As in not even in the same order of magnitude.

 

[metalhead]

Which is why I'm not doing that.

Then why even bring it up?

 

[BvBPL]

Given that you brought it up initially when responding to me, I think you’re in a better position to answer that.

 

[metalhead]

I'm pretty sure you brought it up first with your "we must commit to nonviolence" comment.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think that Condi is bigly ( ) worse than Milo. As in not even in the same order of magnitude.

But they both got protested so doesn't everything make sense?

 

[Kyriakos]

But they both got protested so doesn't everything make sense?

She deserved far worse. Milo isn't a war-criminal

 

[sophie]

For the N-th time... The adjective of YUGE is "Bigly"

In any case... is your point that Condi should or should not have been protested?

bigly is an adverb though.

 

[Sommerswerd]

She deserved far worse. Milo isn't a war-criminal

But in this context, she got the worst possible as in she got protested out of speaking. The only way she could have gotten worse than Milo is if Milo got better... Its like in sports, if you intentionally kick your opponent in the balls, you get ejected... if you poke the ref in the chest with your finger and tell him he's blind, you get ejected, if you accidentally commit 5 personal fouls (basketball) you get ejected. We can argue all day about which is worse but ejection is the maximum penalty the in-game rules allow... Summary execution by firing squad or decapitation by katana-wielding referees is not available... sadly

bigly is an adverb though.

You know what I mean... Gah!

 

[BvBPL]

I'm pretty sure you brought it up first with your "we must commit to nonviolence" comment.

Stating that nonviolence is a general prerequisite to meaningful engagement does not ascribe violence to specific parties.

 

[metalhead]

If your intention was not to steer the conversation to integrate the violent parts of the Berkeley protests into the context of the current discussion, than that was a total non sequitur.

 

[Lexicus]

Stating that nonviolence is a general prerequisite to meaningful engagement does not ascribe violence to specific parties.

Delivered as an admonition to the protesters (and given the context of the thread, it is impossible to interpret it any other way) it certainly does implicitly ascribe violence to specific parties.

 

[BvBPL]

If your intention was not to steer the conversation to integrate the violent parts of the Berkeley protests into the context of the current discussion, than that was a total non sequitur.

The facts that violence by a minority will overshadow the peaceful conduct of the majority and that violence will rob a demonstration of its rectitude mean that all parties in a demonstration like what occurred at Berkeley must commit to nonviolence. It is incumbent upon those who recognize the power of nonviolent demonstrations to educate their seeming allies who may not understand the importance of nonviolence to embrace that principle, else violence overtake the message of the demonstration.

Committing to nonviolence therefore means not merely being nonviolent yourself, but also helping others to express themselves in a nonviolent manner. Calling upon people to commit to nonviolence is not an accusation of past violent conduct, but rather an invitation to embrace a powerful, moral means to change the world for the better. When people join each other in a commitment to nonviolence, the group as a whole gains power through their solidarity and focus. That’s why it is important to fight, metaphorically!, for nonviolence.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Stating that nonviolence is a general prerequisite to meaningful engagement does not ascribe violence to specific parties.

Frankly, I reject the premise wholesale... and everyone that had a fist-fight with a bully (or frienemy) or friend growing up... and immediately thereafter became much closer with stronger mutual respect knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Violence can be a prerequisite to meaningful engagement, because sometimes one or more of the parties involved must be confronted with how high the stakes actually are before they are willing to engage in any meaningful way.

EDIT: And now that I think about it, the entire concept of "corrections institutions" and policing in general has this as a foundational principle.

 

[Lexicus]