[RD] Berkeley Riots

[BvBPL]

Wait... You did the OP for this thread and introduced this topic by lamenting the Berkeley students protesting Milo Yiannopoulos, right? Didn't a number of people immediately point out that Milo Yiannopoulos was known for outing transgendered students and agitating violence against them? I know that was discussed in this thread earlier... so there is a self-defense element here, as well as a defense-of-others element, right? I mean you can argue that its not convincing to you... but that's just argument. You're not the one being threatened. Again, I'm sure this has already been discussed, I just wanted to curtail the erroneous line of argument that self defense isn't an issue here. It's already been established that it is an issue.

The self-defense comment was in relation to the questions about defense against a rampaging murderer in one's house.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The self-defense comment was in relation to the questions about defense against a rampaging murderer in one's house.

Yea I caught that... so you agree that its relevant? Or no?

 

[BvBPL]

Yeah, it's relevant, but it is still not permissible under a theory of justified violence for the reasons I discussed earlier, being that the violence wasn't directed towards preventing the harm (throwing a firebomb at a police officer is not an act directed at preventing someone not present from speaking) nor had nonviolent means been exhausted.

Whew... this reads like a section out of a legal treatise... its the kind of thing you'd expect to hear from some self-righteous, ivory tower, SJW, liberal, graduate student. "Actually... according to Prosser on Torts, Revised 6th Edition, 1996 annotated... violence is justifiable, if at all... under the following circumstances..."

I don't intend to make this a big deal, but you are my audience, not undergrads. I trust you're able to parse it, but I would be happy to rephrase it for you if you'd like.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You consider your theory of justified violence universally authoritative? Or are you talking "justification" more in terms of to your own personal subjective satisfaction?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not advocating for a violent state.

Unless you advocate for the immediate abolition of the military, police and prisons, you're at least advocating for a state with the effective capacity for violence.

I'm not trying to trick you into saying that you think Judge Dredd is a utopia, I'm just saying that if you're going to condemn "violence" without qualification, you have to take that thought to its logical conclusion, and that either means going full anarcho, or rethinking your terms.

 

[BvBPL]

You consider your theory of justified violence universally authoritative? Or are you talking "justification" more in terms of to your own personal subjective satisfaction?

I wouldn't call it my theory, but that theory is pretty well accepted by ethicists. Certainly its adherence is not universal, but I proffer it as an alternative middle ground that most people are generally able to accept more readily than total nonviolence.

People are welcome to offer other models that describe when violence is acceptable, but I don't think that's generally happened here. The best we've gotten are "the ends justify the means" arguments. I don't think those are very good arguments.
Judging actions based solely on the end result is not a reliable means of making a decision in the instant as we may be unable to be certain of the end result. Consider that if Yiannopoulos went ahead with his speech despite the riot, people wouldn't be able to say that the violence was effective and that would ruin the ends justify the means argument. As no one could have know with certainty whether or not the violence would cause him to not speak, no one could have judged at the moment of the decision whether or not the action would have been acceptable.

If someone else wants to offer an alternative theory of when violence is acceptable, we can certainly discuss it within that context.

Unless you advocate for the immediate abolition of the military, police and prisons, you're at least advocating for a state with the effective capacity for violence.

I'm having difficulty convincing people that they shouldn't firebomb third-parties. I don't think my persuasive talents are up to calling for the abolition of the state, at least not on 6:30 on a Friday.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Following that to it's logical conclusion we arrive at "unless you are certain it will work you are never justified in trying anything."

 

[metalhead]

Firstly, there is no presumption of an virtue in a riot after a sport game. No one is claiming the high ground for the riot. There’s no moral justification for the behavior.

Secondly, as you said, the destruction following sporting events is generally limited to vandalism against property, rather than violence against people. There generally aren’t fire bombs being tossed at the police.

Thirdly, there haven’t been a lot of riots around sport events that I am aware of that have occurred since the Punch a Nazi thread was published wherein people advocated for violence as a political / social tool. That’s really what it comes down to. The topic is timely because people are coming out following that punch saying it is acceptable to be violent to advance their social goals. In discussing the how, who, and where, the when is also relevant as the concept of violence as a means to effect social change is a timely topic.

Post Script. Additional, railing against violence following a sporting even does little to persuade anyone of anything. Nearly everyone here would say "yup, they shouldn't do that," and wag their virtual fingers. Because it isn't divisive, a discussion of violence following a sporting event wouldn't cause anyone here to change their behaviors or principles. It would merely amount to everyone agreeing with each other.

So then you agree, the violence itself is ultimately not what is problematic, but rather the thing the violence was brought to bear in response to. You were trying to claim that violence is always wrong, but that doesn't really follow. It's not that people condone sport riots, rather that nobody seems to care one way or the other. Everyone just kind of shrugs and accepts it and moves on with their lives. That violence is inconsequential. So trying to claim that the same kind of violence in a different context is hugely problematic kind of requires the conclusion that the violence itself is not the thing that is objectionable.

 

[aelf]

Following that to it's logical conclusion we arrive at "unless you are certain it will work you are never justified in trying anything."

Kinda ironic since he thinks that protests being liable to result in violence is not a reason not to protest. It seems like the end result of 'successful peaceful protest' is somehow judged as a good enough consideration for deciding whether or not to protest despite "[the inability] to be certain of the end result".

 

[Sommerswerd]

I wouldn't call it my theory, but that theory is pretty well accepted by ethicists. Certainly its adherence is not universal, but I proffer it as an alternative middle ground that most people are generally able to accept more readily than total nonviolence. People are welcome to offer other models that describe when violence is acceptable, but I don't think that's generally happened here. The best we've gotten are "the ends justify the means" arguments. I don't think those are very good arguments.

There is often a disconnect between the philosophical/theoretical and the practical. Do you consider verbal abuse, like say a husband screaming and berating his wife without actually striking her to be violence? domestic violence? When George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, my understanding was the Zimmerman perceived Martin as a threat, so he armed himself and stalked him. In response to being stalked, Trayvon fled, hid and then ambushed Zimmerman starting a fistfight. I response to be ambushed, Zimmerman shot Martin, killing him. So what was the act of violence? The cloaked presence in a neighborhood? The armed stalking? The hiding from and ambushing the armed stalker? The shooting of the guy you're fistfigting? Who had the responsibility to withdraw under your theory? Does your definition of violence only encompasses physical contact, either by hand or through instrumentalities (guns, bombs etc)? If yes then how is "immediate harm" defined? Through subjective perception? Or are there concrete spatial and temporal parameters that you can state?

 

[Kyriakos]

^Violence (in civilian life) is by law only justified if in self defence. Furthermore you may be not punished for violence up to lethal violence, in the case there are various mittigating circumstances. That said, said punishable violence is meant as physical and not only emotional (ie emotional violence may be an added accusation, but not the core one in cases of physical violence). The main reason for that (apart from physical violence being a lot easier to prove) is that emotional effects are a lot more subjective.
Now, while self-defence would allow one to not be punished (or not be punished heavily) for violence, it would not cover a riot. Those people rioting aren't trying to protect their own self, or if they are (eg illegals) they effectively have diminished legal standing there (?) given they aren't citizens of the country (?). At any rate, self-defence is more logical to argue as a cause in cases where the violence is tied to a nearby and direct cause. So it isn't that much of a self-defence claim if you are violent so that you will bring about the cancellation of someone speaking in the uni and you don't want what he may say to harm people you know or care about even without knowing them. This is far more an emotional reaction, and not a defensive action against an imminent threat to your own self, so you aren't in a clear state of self-defence.
Of course the above is more of a logical reflection, and ultimately the law in each country would control how a judge would see this. Noted it given we aren't having a legal argument, but one on ethics.

 

[Sommerswerd]

We're not talking about what is or is not legal. That question is much better resolved by looking up and citing California criminal statute. Legality is squarely outside the scope of the current discussion.

 

[aelf]

In ethical/moral discussion, the self-defence example is certainly convenient in a simplistic kind of way. Already under physical attack? You can do what you deem necessary to survive. Simple, right?

If it's one robber or thug, sure that might work well enough. But what if it's an organised group perpetrating systemic or at least widespread violence? How is self-defence going to work out for you then? The great irony, of course, is that pacifists may then ask that you entrust your protection to the state so that it can commit violence on your behalf to protect you (even if these pacifists may oppose state violence in principle).

Practically-speaking, that might work fine. In fact, in normal circumstances, that's exactly what people would do. But what if we're talking about people who are able to cause physical harm or induce violence against you without the state being able to stop them, either because they've gained control over it or because the laws don't cover these instances? Are people expected to simply wait for it to happen?

That's why I say by the time we get into mass street battles with Nazis, it's already too late. Before we get into such a situation, we need to stop them from being able to increase their influence. Just mocking or ignoring them isn't always going to work.

But how is this not an argument for suppressing any groups that we don't like? Well, what is the intention of a particular group? If they intend genocide or violence against the helpless and are already organising themselves (even if they don't want genocide or violence now), then it's pretty clear. In fact, that's how the security apparatus already works. After all, no society seems willing to let ISIS-sympathisers act or gain influence before taking measures to stop or contain them, often arresting them outright. If the state isn't willing to take measures against groups that we know want to perpetrate crimes like genocide, I don't think there's a realistic moral argument for insisting people do nothing about it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But how is this not an argument for suppressing any groups that we don't like? Well, what is the intention of a particular group? If they intend genocide or violence against the helpless and are already organising themselves (even if they don't want genocide or violence now), then it's pretty clear. In fact, that's how the security apparatus already works. After all, no society seems willing to let ISIS-sympathisers act or gain influence before taking measures to stop or contain them, often arresting them outright. If the state isn't willing to take measures against groups that we know want to perpetrate crimes like genocide, I don't think there's a realistic moral argument for insisting people do nothing about it.

I use basically the same reasoning when dealing with individuals. It isn't about them "saying something I disagree with." It's about their intent. If I tell someone "if you don't want to work things out and all you are trying to do here is piss me off you are on the right track, because in my estimation doing xxxxxx is nothing but rude provocation" and they proceed to do xxxxxx then they made their intentions crystal clear. There doesn't need to be any discussion of the "righteousness" of their point of view, or examination of their right to express themselves. Their intentions are clear and I see no reason to thwart them, so I give them what they want.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The relevance is that you (the royal you) might refer to the actions of people you like, or who's goals you support as "behaving properly and within sound moral parameters", while simultaneously referring to a different group doing the same or similar acts as "engaging in rioting and mindless vandalism" or similar, precisely because you don't like them and don't support their goals.

Well you might like clubbing baby seals to death I suppose. But until you offer any sort of evidence that that is the case, I would say it would be irrelevant to present a counter-argument to you just in case you do. They day I advocate for people that I like going around smashing things up, setting stuff on fire, punching people in the face etc, then I guess come back to me and we can have this discussion then. Until that day, posting pictures of hurricane victims scrabbling for food, with differing captions, is completely irrelevant.

That is if you're talking to me. If you're only talking to the "royal me" then carry on I guess, but maybe don't quote me and reply to me directly if that's the case.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Wait... You did the OP for this thread and introduced this topic by lamenting the Berkeley students protesting Milo Yiannopoulos, right? Didn't a number of people immediately point out that Milo Yiannopoulos was known for outing transgendered students and agitating violence against them? I know that was discussed in this thread earlier... so there is a self-defense element here, as well as a defense-of-others element, right? I mean you can argue that its not convincing to you... but that's just argument. You're not the one being threatened. Again, I'm sure this has already been discussed, I just wanted to curtail the erroneous line of argument that self defense isn't an issue here. It's already been established that it is an issue.

Yes, and the veracity of that claim has been questioned at least a couple of times and has not been addressed. The OP, or at least some early post, also claimed he has a "history" of outing undocumented students, which appears to be completely untrue as well. As far as I've been able to tell by actually digging around on google, there was one incident of him discussing a transgender former student at Milwaukee (or Wisconsin or whatever). It wasn't an "outing" because the student had already been in the news, which is precisely why they were being talked about. He also did not agitate for violence against them, and they weren't even still a student at that college. (This is of course where I get accused of "defending" putting up pictures of a transgender person and talking about them in a derogatory manner. Fill your boots I guess). There were also claims that he would "out" undocumented students at the cancelled talk, but he denied that and as far as I'm aware that's not been shown to be anything than an unsubstantiated claim.

And I do feel that it's actually rather important to establish what's actually true about those claims, given that they seem to very much form the basis of most of the moral arguments bouncing about. So it seems shocking that by page 23 it's barely been discussed at all.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well you might like clubbing baby seals to death I suppose. But until you offer any sort of evidence that that is the case, I would say it would be irrelevant to present a counter-argument to you just in case you do. They day I advocate for people that I like going around smashing things up, setting stuff on fire, punching people in the face etc, then I guess come back to me and we can have this discussion then. Until that day, posting pictures of hurricane victims scrabbling for food, with differing captions, is completely irrelevant.

That is if you're talking to me. If you're only talking to the "royal me" then carry on I guess, but maybe don't quote me and reply to me directly if that's the case.

This is a tough one, because you're asking for "evidence", which gets us into a tangential discussion of what you consider evidence and what I consider evidence... which raises another tangential discussion about which one of us is more qualified to define evidence...

Putting those aside, I will dip my toe into this bear-trap in a good faith attempt to respond to your question. You personally have, engaged in a lengthy debate/defense of the Confederate flag with me, among others, on these very threads. You even made it your Avatar at some point, to drive home your position IIRC. I submit to you that taking that position is evidence of you supporting what the Confederate Flag stands for, both positive and negative, which includes, basically all that stuff you named, attacking people, setting stuff on fire, etc., which is precisely why you received so much pushback about it... Now I am fully aware that you may vehemently disagree, possibly along the lines of stating that you were simply making a free-speech argument. However, maybe you can at least see that the issue was fairly raised? Ie, making the Confederate flag your avatar is going to fairly lead people to reasonably conclude that you harbor some sympathy, if not outright endorsement of the negative aspects of what the flag represents? In any case, you asked for evidence.

Yes, and the veracity of that claim has been questioned at least a couple of times and has not been addressed.

About this... what you seem to be saying is the claim has been made, disagreed with and not necessarily proven or disproven to your satisfaction, right? OK, so then to my satisfaction, it remains a legitimate issue. I mean you haven't even taken the position that its an outright falsehood yet, nor have you taken it upon yourself to debunk it. So why should anyone else embrace your skepticism? If you want to be skeptical in Milo's favour, go right ahead, but that doesn't remotely negate the issue does it?

 

[Farm Boy]

Eyug. <blah!>

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This is a tough one, because you're asking for "evidence", which gets us into a tangential discussion of what you consider evidence and what I consider evidence... which raises another tangential discussion about which one of us is more qualified to define evidence...

Well in terms of my ludicrous example, I would define it to mean you making any sort of statement that was broadly in favour of clubbing baby seals to death. As relates to me it would be some example of me defending violent acts by people that I liked, or comitted in the name of causes I support. This wasn't meant to be a controversial point or one that requires tangential debate. Just simple evidence, or "an indication" if you prefer.

Putting those aside, I will dip my toe into this bear-trap in a good faith attempt to respond to your question.

It's not a trap and there's no bad faith. Clubbing baby seals to death is obviously an outrageous example to use, but that's just how I roll

You personally have, engaged in a lengthy debate/defense of the Confederate flag with me, among others, on these very threads. You even made it your Avatar at some point, to drive home your position IIRC. I submit to you that taking that position is evidence of you supporting what the Confederate Flag stands for, both positive and negative, which includes, basically all that stuff you named, attacking people, setting stuff on fire, etc., which is precisely why you received so much pushback about it... Now I am fully aware that you may vehemently disagree, possibly along the lines of stating that you were simply making a free-speech argument. However, maybe you can at least see that the issue was fairly raised? Ie, making the Confederate flag your avatar is going to fairly lead people to reasonably conclude that you harbor some sympathy, if not outright endorsement of the negative aspects of what the flag represents? In any case, you asked for evidence.

Okay well first of all, just to be absolutely clear on this issue, the Confederate Flag means no more to me than a reminder of the Dukes of Hazzard. I'm not American so I don't support what it "stands for" in any way. There doesn't seem much point going over what my actual reasons were as I went over that ad nauseum at the time. But to me this is a really poor analogy for two main reasons:

1) You may well claim that some people who hold the flag close to their hearts for their own reasons, may indulge in acts of violence etc which stem from the same reasons they like the flag. However, this is not directly related to the flag, and you also must accept that their are also plenty of other people who hold the flag close to their hearts of other reasons and do not do these things. One might almost dare suggest that the latter group would even be the majority? Whereas "smashing things up and setting things on fire" is, one would have to say, a rather less complicated issue, which doesn't quite have the same spectrum of variety contained within the concept. In short, the Confederate flag doesn't always mean smashing things up and setting things on fire, whereas "smashing things up and setting things on fire" kind of does always mean smashing things up and setting things on fire.

2) I've been arguing against people directly advocating for smashing things up and setting things on fire. Or punching people in the face. I've not had to dig and infer their support for this from what they've said about tangential issues. It's right there in black and white. Infer all you like from what I said about flags, but please point to any example of my direct advocacy for violence like that.

About this... what you seem to be saying is the claim has been made, disagreed with and not necessarily proven or disproven to your satisfaction, right? OK, so then to my satisfaction, it remains a legitimate issue. I mean you haven't even taken the position that its an outright falsehood yet, nor have you taken it upon yourself to debunk it. So why should anyone else embrace your skepticism? If you want to be skeptical in Milo's favour, go right ahead, but that doesn't remotely negate the issue does it?

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the claim has been made and my actual checking into the facts seems to DISprove it. But even if it hadn't, it wouldn't be right to say "well we don't know either way, so let's assume it's true". The burden of proof is on those making the claim. So we've had 23 pages based on unverified claims at best, and claims which appear to be demonstrably false at worst. So yes, that does negate the issue because much of the defence of such extreme "protesting" seems to be based on the idea that they were protecting people's "safety", which in turn stems from these claims. If these claims are total rubbish then that's extremely pertinent.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Eyug. <blah!>

Sorry I was just getting ready to PM you ... Too late...

EDIT @Manfred Belheim - You're moving the goalpost now, so meh... regardless, I understand (and disagree with) your point(s), so we (I) can move on from the Confederate flag discussion. I also readily admit that I can't remember any instances of you directly calling for people to "smash things up and set things on fire".

As to your last point... I don't think that negates what I said at all... in fact it just confirms it, for the reasons I've already stated. But that's just a feedback loop, so again, its clear that we are not going to agree on that point either.