[RD] Berkeley Riots

[metalhead]

Ok, if you want to talk about the actual humans who chain other humans to bumpers and hit the gas: that's quite a beast to deal with. And almost impossible to reason with. Which is why we tend to lock them in cages. Fortunately, almost nobody actually does these things(unfortunately, enough still do). The militaries of the world have spent significant amounts of effort on raising the percentage of their soldiers, who will in battle, aim a rifle at another human being and pull the trigger. I think naturally humans who will kill other humans hovers around 2%. Without about half of those people being psychopaths and the remaining half willing to do so out of loyalty/love. But what we're looking to do isn't actually fixing the most violence prone people, just reducing the situations in which their willingness to kill is tolerated. And the reasons very much matter there, especially the bad ones. Then the guys who "just make up reasons" start producing Elijah Lovejoys and Rev. James Reebs, etc. and those martyrs are actually the effective tools against the prejudices that cause murderers to be tolerated. It's the breakdowns of the reasons that force them to eat "their own."

I'm not quite sure where this tangent was headed, but it's probably worth noting that the lynch mobs and the murderers of James Byrd were able to carry out their crimes because they didn't view their victims as humans. Or at least, not as humans due the same rights as proper white folk. That's the difference between your hypothetical soldier, and why lynchings were such an extraordinarily awful chapter in our history. White supremacists don't murder black folk, whether in large groups or small or even by themselves, because they are sociopaths who care not for their victims or their crime's impact on other people. It's because they don't believe their targets are inherently worthy of any level of regard at all. And in fact, may believe that they are actually doing our society and/or our country a service by eliminating them.

Lynchings weren't fundamentally about violence, any more than they were about enforcing proper conduct of black men around white women.

 

[Farm Boy]

... right?

 

[aelf]

Yes Aelf, you missed something. That applies to the nature of prejudice, applicable in the tangent here. Not to any fever dream in which black guys = nazis or brietbart editors. If disinterested in the tangent, cool, refocus on the RD OP.

But clearly the initial defense of the protesters acting on their beliefs is in the context of their reacting to a well-known douchebag and provocateur. Wasn't the point that people act on their beliefs very often, and that it can be more or less justified depending on the context? So how does bringing up examples of lynching black people address that at all, unless you're saying it's not so far removed from the context?

 

[Farm Boy]

Bringing up examples of lynching black people would only be relevant by taking the protesters at full faith and credit in their assessment of Douchebag Provocateur, an active threat of getting somebody lynched/shot/beaten/raped in the dark of night/at a party etc. At which point the defense of others becomes a relevant concern, yes. But that's a super dicey thing to go all in on, and throwing molotovs when police are present is likely enough to get somebody killed that I, at least, am going to toss these kids in the same rough mental bin with another group of people I find vaguely sympathetic, but mostly massive crappers: the guys who while on 911 disregard the police and go waste a couple of fellas breaking into their neighbor's garage. They, disturbingly enough, also seem to be in the habit of getting off the hook. This isn't a great thing to be particularly permissive of.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

the guys who while on 911 disregard the police and go waste a couple of fellas breaking into their neighbor's garage.

Do they have a separate category from people who go waste the fellas breaking into the neighbor's garage without being on 911?

Just curious.

 

[Lexicus]

But that's a super dicey thing to go all in on, and throwing molotovs when police are present is likely enough to get somebody killed that I, at least, am going to toss these kids in the same rough mental bin with another group of people I find vaguely sympathetic, but mostly massive crappers: the guys who while on 911 disregard the police and go waste a couple of fellas breaking into their neighbor's garage. They, disturbingly enough, also seem to be in the habit of getting off the hook. This isn't a great thing to be particularly permissive of.

So just to be nice and clear and specific, by 'these kids' you mean the Black Bloc and not the protesters in general, yes?

 

[Bamspeedy]

So just to be nice and clear and specific, by 'these kids' you mean the Black Bloc and not the protesters in general, yes?

He did say 'throwing molotovs' in the same sentence so I would assume so. While I may sometimes disagree with some protests, my harshest comments towards protesters are for those committing violence, even if I don't specifically add the disclaimer to every comment that "I'm talking about the looting, car burning protestors and not the peaceful protestors".

 

[aelf]

Bringing up examples of lynching black people would only be relevant by taking the protesters at full faith and credit in their assessment of Douchebag Provocateur, an active threat of getting somebody lynched/shot/beaten/raped in the dark of night/at a party etc. At which point the defense of others becomes a relevant concern, yes. But that's a super dicey thing to go all in on, and throwing molotovs when police are present is likely enough to get somebody killed that I, at least, am going to toss these kids in the same rough mental bin with another group of people I find vaguely sympathetic, but mostly massive crappers: the guys who while on 911 disregard the police and go waste a couple of fellas breaking into their neighbor's garage. They, disturbingly enough, also seem to be in the habit of getting off the hook. This isn't a great thing to be particularly permissive of.

Err, like I was saying, their assessment was done in the context of the guy being a douchebag provocateur who might actually do something like that. Not sure whether a couple of guys breaking into the garage are really likely to do something that's worth killing them outright for.

And are you really talking about the not-so-peaceful protesters or just those who threw molotov cocktails? You know, moderates on this board seem to be on this thing where they conflate things so that they can pass judgement on those with whom they disagree, like the Punching Nazis thread where the titular Nazis referred to aren't actually Nazis.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't want to derail this too much but I never really understood why anyone thought it was somehow morally compromising for Han to shoot first in the bar scene. He's being held at gunpoint by a bounty hunter who's taking him to probably be killed by Jabba, shooting first is absolutely a 100% moral response to the situation.

Relevant.

 

[metalhead]

Is there any actual proof that a molotov cocktail was thrown at police with the intent of hitting them? This seems to be the specific act that people have a beef with, because it's really the only thing even vaguely threatening to people, but it's being sold as malicious res ipsa loquitur.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I was wondering about that too... as well as the "punching" and "looting" I keep hearing about, but since we couldn't even get past the issue of if the protesters were justified if they had a reasonable belief that they were acting to defend their classmates from harm...

 

[Lexicus]

I was wondering about that too... as well as the "punching" and "looting" I keep hearing about, but since we couldn't even get past the issue of if the protesters were justified if they had a reasonable belief that they were acting to defend their classmates from harm...

I'd agree with this, but it would hinge rather decisively on what was meant by 'reasonable belief.'

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I tried earlier to draw a distinction with students overexhuberent being a more understandable presence. When things get dicey my main concern with wanting them off the street when things are getting lit on fire and the cops get a'thumping is that I don't want them hurt unless I have really good reason to think a martyr from the situation would be of greater use than a breathing and uninjured young man or woman. Some examples of which I've also tried to include. I dunno. It's not clear to me, it's messy and I'm tangent-prone. Just trying to sort it out myself.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'd agree with this, but it would hinge rather decisively on what was meant by 'reasonable belief.'

Well that hits the famous nail on the famous head... and that is exactly what we should be talking about. Its the heart of the matter, frankly... what constitutes reasonable. As you correctly pointed out earlier. This is not an issue which lends itself to some half-cocked universal principle or simplistic bit of philosophy. Its a case-by-case thing that can't really be adequately addressed in abstract terms.

Which brings us full circle, squarely to the point that people who despise so-called SJWs (and liberals) and/or everything they stand for are likely going to refuse to see any justification for the behavior of people they hate in this specific instance. Whether you regard the Berkely protest as justified is the very definition of subjective and subject to your individual subjective biases.

EDIT: Yeah, what Farm Boy said

 

[Lexicus]

Well that hits the famous nail on the famous head... and that is exactly what we should be talking about. Its the heart of the matter, frankly... what constitutes reasonable. As you correctly pointed out earlier. This is not an issue which lends itself to some half-cocked universal principle or simplistic bit of philosophy. Its a case-by-case thing that can't really be adequately addressed in abstract terms.

I'd argue that you can still view people as a necessary, positive part of a dialectical process without trying to fit everything they do into a unitary philosophical system.

That's about where I am with a lot of the "SJW" stuff: don't necessarily agree with all of the theory and practice, but appreciate how it's changing the conversation and pushing the envelope.

 

[BvBPL]

Which brings us full circle, squarely to the point that people who despise so-called SJWs (and liberals) and/or everything they stand for are likely going to refuse to see any justification for the behavior of people they hate in this specific instance. Whether you regard the Berkely protest as justified is the very definition of subjective and subject to your individual subjective biases.

So what's the standard for reasonable belief and reasonable behavior then?

 

[Lexicus]

So what's the standard for reasonable belief and reasonable behavior then?

If there was a straightforward answer to that question, we wouldn't have much need of trial by jury.

 

[Lexicus]

 

[Sommerswerd]

So what's the standard for reasonable belief and reasonable behavior then?

For the Berkley matter? Well... we could start here then move on to here... then dig into Plato, the Bible... you name it...

TL;DR - The "standard" is... reasonable under the circumstances as determined by the finder of fact.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Just remember to not put any effort into establishing any facts about the Berkley speaker's intentions or likely actions though, because that would be entirely irrelevant. In fact, best to actively avoid trying to find anything out at all. Because reasons.