“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Emily's Cat]

No offense but I find that a bit of a pedantic interpretation of my post.

Twice-removed observation:

"vindicated of" roughly equates to "absolved of"
"vindicated by" roughly equates to "justified by"

One phrase implies that the suspicion is withdrawn and found to have no standing. The other phrase implies that the action was excusable and is acceptable due to other circumstances or actions.

A person who is accused of murder, and is later found to be not guilty based on evidence that they were not there at the time, might be said to be vindicated of the accusation.

A person who is accused of murder, and is later found to have been acting in self-defense against an attacker, might be said to be vindicated by the attack.

That is my understanding, other interpretations may exist

 

[caveman1917]

So you just assume everyone who was injured or had property damaged was a Milo supporter?

No.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/01/berkeley-braces-for-protests-at-yiannopoulos-talk/

I'm not seeing anything there about a bike shop or book store.

Banks that had nothing to do with this were vandalized.

Police who had nothing to do with Milo and were just doing their jobs were injured.

And?

Why? Please clarify this and my original question.

No thanks.

 

[caveman1917]

You still haven't managed to explain why you think destroying people's property should be encouraged.

Universities are people? Banks are people?

Is this that cultist thing where whatever random crap you make up in your head actually becomes "people" if you just anthropomorphize it enough?

 

[caveman1917]

You realize, I suppose, that the bit after "So" doesn't actually follow from what you said before.

It does. You have to include statements in my previous posts in this thread, not just the couple of statements in that post itself, but yes it does follow.

But your position is clear enough.

Yes it is. Though I doubt it is to you.

You encourage people to destroy public and private property because they disagree with an invited speaker.

No, I encourage people to speak out against violence, and to do so effectively.

I sure as hell don't agree.

That much is obvious.

 

[caveman1917]

Except personal property was damaged.

Evidence?

 

[caveman1917]

When you adopt the same tactics as the fascists then when you successfully oppose them you only succeed in replacing one evil with another.

You also legitimize violence as political discourse leaving the door open to violence from the fascists, which history shows to be a real danger.

 

[Belz...]

Universities are people? Banks are people?

They are typically owned by people, making their property some people's property.

Seriously, what is it with posters here recently and pretending to not understand the most basic things?

 

[The_Animus]

No.



I'm not seeing anything there about a bike shop or book store.



And?



No thanks.

Please try to pay at least a little attention to the conversations you participate in. I never said a bike shop or book store was damaged. You said that it matters whose property was damaged and I gave those as examples and asked you why it would make a difference whether a bike shop or a bookstore was damaged. You said it would but ignored the actual question. Why?

I did specifically say banks had their property damaged, which was in that article I linked that you pretended to read. Or maybe you just chose to ignore. Or maybe you just have trouble following the conversation over time. I've asked you 3 times to clarify your position and you've repeatedly dodged, or diverted, or just said patently ridiculous things.

Since you don't seem to have any intention of actually answering I won't bother with this any further. I'm just going to take your posts at face value. If person A is going to speak about a topic person B disagrees with, person B is justified and in fact should be encouraged to harm people and property, whether private or public, including people and property who have nothing to do with this and don't support the speaker or the topic of discussion.

Except if it's you that is.

 

[caveman1917]

Now I'm wondering, has anti-fascist resistance ever worked?

Yes.

I don't recall any significant resistance to the Mussolini regime in Italy.

I do. In that case they were not supported by the trade unions or left-wing parties, as these kept to a strategy of so-called "non-violence" and legalism. If we want to look at the effectiveness, we have a data-point of legalistic non-violence and the fascists took over just a couple years later, getting the first fascist regime in history. That worked out well.

There was some resistance in Spain, but the Francisco regime ultimately prevailed.

In Spain, about a decade later, anti-fascist resistance was supported by the trade unions and left-wing parties, at least generally. Here we see a military coup d'état taking 3 years and requiring foreign military support to finally come out as victorious. A data-point for anti-fascist resistance, already much better than Italy.

Anti-fascist resistance in Germany in the 1930s was popular and well-organized, primarily by the communist parties, but their resistance was violently beaten down by the SA.

Not exactly. Most of all it was the infighting between the KPD and the SPD (both of which had organized antifa groups) which left the NSDAP the room to grow and ultimately become victorious. Divide et impera and all that.

What history has shown to work against fascism is total industrial warfare on a grand scale.

If you're only going to look at countries which historically did become fascist then naturally you will only find failures of anti-fascist resistance. Look at the other countries in Europe during that time.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm just going to take your posts at face value.

Maybe you should, because...

If person A is going to speak about a topic person B disagrees with, person B is justified and in fact should be encouraged to harm people and property, whether private or public, including people and property who have nothing to do with this and don't support the speaker or the topic of discussion.

...I never said that.

 

[theprestige]

Seriously, what is it with posters here recently and pretending to not understand the most basic things?

Whatever happened to Belz...? I feel like he would have understood the strategy pretty well.

I kid, I kid.

But seriously, you can tell how bankrupt an anarchist's arguments are by how quickly they have to resort to a smokescreen of semantic confusion.

 

[Belz...]

Whatever happened to Belz...? I feel like he would have understood the strategy pretty well.

I kid, I kid.

So you say, but I'll still respond that whenever I say that I don't understand something, it's because I don't.

 

[phiwum]

It does. You have to include statements in my previous posts in this thread, not just the couple of statements in that post itself, but yes it does follow.



Yes it is. Though I doubt it is to you.



No, I encourage people to speak out against violence, and to do so effectively.



That much is obvious.

You encourage people to destroy private property (yes, that affects the investors, who have to repair the damage, though the per-person cost is low) in order to prevent Milo from speaking. What violence does Milo advocate (a real question, I know little about him and am prepared to be educated)?

What harm does his speech do that legitimizes public and private property damage?

I'm all for public, peaceful protest if one disagrees with an invited speaker. I'm also for allowing the speaker to speak, unless there are really remarkable circumstances warranting his silence. I am not for destruction of others' property just because the wrong speaker was invited to campus.

 

[phiwum]

Kind sir, cutesy smily faces don't actually substitute for arguments. Just a thought.

 

[Belz...]

What violence does Milo advocate (a real question, I know little about him and am prepared to be educated)?

None, actually. There's a lot of negative to say about Milo but I've never heard of him advocating violence.

 

[caveman1917]

You encourage people to destroy private property

Private property is a belief, not a thing. If you did mean private property, then yes I encourage people to argue against it and "destroy" it. If you meant the thing - say a window - then I disagree that it was destroyed. Empirically all one can say is that it was molecularly rearranged. Whether such state change consists of "destruction" or "creation" is a value judgement.

(yes, that affects the investors, who have to repair the damage, though the per-person cost is low)

They don't have to, they choose to. And they don't repair it, they order others to do it for them.

in order to prevent Milo from speaking. What violence does Milo advocate (a real question, I know little about him and am prepared to be educated)?

What harm does his speech do that legitimizes public and private property damage?

Remember that student outing thing, for example? I even asked you how many undocumented students getting deported or otherwise in legal trouble Milo's right to free speech was worth to you.

I'm all for public, peaceful protest if one disagrees with an invited speaker.

I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

I'm also for allowing the speaker to speak, unless there are really remarkable circumstances warranting his silence.

Ok, a point of agreement. As you might notice there are plenty of people speaking at Berkeley all the time, yet this doesn't occur multiple times per day, so it seems your advice tends to get followed indeed. Not sure why you bring it up then.

I am not for destruction of others' property just because the wrong speaker was invited to campus.

Debatable, see first paragraph of this post for starters.

 

[Belz...]

Private property is a belief, not a thing. If you did mean private property, then yes I encourage people to argue against it and "destroy" it. If you meant the thing - say a window - then I disagree that it was destroyed. Empirically all one can say is that it was molecularly rearranged. Whether such state change consists of "destruction" or "creation" is a value judgement.

What in the name of **** are you babbling about?

 

[caveman1917]

Kind sir, cutesy smily faces don't actually substitute for arguments. Just a thought.

Good thing then that it isn't substituting an argument.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What in the name of **** are you babbling about?

Communism, it seems.

 

[caveman1917]

What in the name of **** are you babbling about?

It's very simple. Is the window still there if we choose to stop believing it? Yes, hence it's a "thing". Is it still "private property" if we choose to stop believing it is? No, hence it's a "belief".

Your failure to grasp such rudimentary distinctions between empirical reality and whatever random belief system you adhere to is probably one of the biggest reasons why this discussion fails to move forward.