[RD] Berkeley Riots

Status
Not open for further replies.
metalhead said:
Right, but violence happens at sporting events too, so "Violence happened at X thing" is not a particularly provocative or controversial thing that merits actual discussion.
Click to expand...
This does, as witnessed by your interest in discussing it.
 
Sommerswerd said:
So what's your analysis?
Click to expand...

That everyone got positive reinforcement that making people scared can shut them up and that the police didn't seem to hurt anybody. Soooo, +1 for riot police in CA?
 
metalhead said:
If society looks the other way and shrugs at purposeless violence, or even laughs it away with a "boys will be boys" attitude, it makes it all the more curious when the exact same violence is then decried when it actually serves a purpose.
Click to expand...
Violence with no purpose is lovable hi-jinks... or a nuisance... violence with a purpose is terrorism... or freedom fighting... depending on whether you like liberal SJWs or not and whether you like conservative Breitbart guys or not... Or maybe violence is just violence and you just like it or dislike it depending on your "side"... same difference.
Farm Boy said:
Soooo, +1 for riot police in CA?
Click to expand...
Like you said.
 
Last edited:
Sommerswerd said:
Violence with no purpose is lovable hi-jinks... or a nuisance... violence with a purpose is terrorism... or freedom fighting... depending on whether you like liberal SJWs or not and whether you like conservative Breitbart guys or not... Or maybe violence is just violence and you just like it or dislike it depending on your "side"... same difference.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People need to be honest with themselves, and with others in the discussion. They'll hide behind broken windows and alleged molotov cocktails that didn't manage to set anything or anyone on fire in order to shield their position with the righteous indignation of being anti-violence, but that's ultimately not the issue.
 
Well, when a fellow says a topic doesn't merit discussion in his sixtieth post in a thread over the course of a month, an on-looker might question if the fellow has been honest with himself.

Or maybe we should try and assume some good faith.
 
BvBPL said:
Well, when a fellow says a topic doesn't merit discussion in his sixtieth post in a thread over the course of a month, an on-looker might question if the fellow has been honest with himself.

Or maybe we should try and assume some good faith.
Click to expand...

Well, since what he said doesn't merit discussion isn't what the thread is actually about I don't see the conflict there.
 
BvBPL said:
Well, when a fellow says a topic doesn't merit discussion in his sixtieth post in a thread over the course of a month, an on-looker might question if the fellow has been honest with himself.

Or maybe we should try and assume some good faith.
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily a straight line from the start of a discussion to any of a number of conclusions one might reach as a result of that discussion. Particularly when others in the discussion insist on calling something terrible which in another context is not considered terrible at all.

I therefore find the conclusion that the context matters far more than the violence itself inescapable given those facts. That doesn't mean the violence doesn't present some interesting question on its own, rather that it ultimately doesn't seem to be what people object to, even when they claim to be.
 
In the wake of right-wing demonstrations in Boston and now the Bay becoming flashes in the pan due to pressure from counter demonstrations, there can be no doubt that nonviolent collective action is the only way to beat back hate. Peaceful Solidarity: 3, Punching Nazis: 0
 
In other words, you need a violent element to draw fire and prove the worth of non-violent resistance. Otherwise the non-violent resistance gets written off as a way for lazy college kids to make those Soros-bucks.
 
It’s easy, even completely natural and expected, for people to be dismissive when others want to effect change. It’s also easy to get discouraged when confronted with opposition or even apathy. Persistence is the key to creating change. Those that endure in their nonviolent struggle for change will put paid to the allegations that they are lazy.
 
Change only happens when you reach a tipping point of people who have a stake in the change actually happening. That is typically an extremely long and messy process, and giving people that stake is hard to do through purely legal and non-violent means.
 
There’s nothing wrong with a little hard work. Indeed, the recognition that the work will be hard is all the more reason to celebrate the successes of nonviolence as those little victories buoy the spirit.
 
At the same time, people looking to effect real change ought to be aware that cowing a few Trump supporters isn't really changing anything.
 
Rally against hate...


It would be more interesting if they called it rally against violence, but "rally against hate" already sounds ironic enough.
Reminds me of Bulgakov: "There won't be a war, but there will be such a struggle for world peace, that no stone will be left standing"
 
No wonder 'unite the right' people showed up armed, seems a bit hypocritical to condemn them for having weapons when the 'antifascists' lolol want a war.
 
They both want war, they were made for each other.
 
Antifascists vs fascists... what an incredibly easy choice. Are you all serious?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

aelf
Protest is almost always wrong?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
aelf
aelf
Back
Top Bottom