“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[The Big Dog]

Can everyone just agree that Sports riots are absolutely the worst and that ponderingturtles yeoman efforts have convinced everyone of that?

Well done pondering turtle!

 

[The Big Dog]

I am still waiting for white leaders to address the perverse love of pumpkins that drove the pumpkin riots. But they are constantly silent.

ARGGH! i forgot the Pumpkins too!

I hate whitey's perverse of pumpkins too!

Well shown, PT.

Now back to Berkely?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not exactly, more that an object doesn't have a purpose.

Do you believe that your computer serves no purpose?

Probably. Most likely their purpose in designing the window was so as to keep their job as window designer and make some money.

Am I clear in understanding that you believe the person who designed the window designed it for the sole purpose of making money?

Do you also believe that the person who designed your keyboard designed it solely to make money, and that there is no other intended purpose involved?

 

[caveman1917]

Do you believe that your computer serves no purpose?

My computer has no purpose indeed.

Do you believe objects have a purpose? If so, that train being used for spare parts, what is its purpose? Suppose some homeless person is using it for shelter at night. What then, is its purpose to be a shelter for a homeless person? What is its true purpose, which one is it?

Am I clear in understanding that you believe the person who designed the window designed it for the sole purpose of making money?

Do you also believe that the person who designed your keyboard designed it solely to make money, and that there is no other intended purpose involved?

You know what, why don't you answer your own questions? Tell us, for what purpose did the window designer design the window, or the keyboard designer design the keyboard?

 

[Emily's Cat]

My computer has no purpose indeed.

I assume you have no objection to someone smashing it with a hammer then?

You know what, why don't you answer your own questions? Tell us, for what purpose did the window designer design the window, or the keyboard designer design the keyboard?

The purpose for which the window was designed is to be a window - to let light into a room without exposing the room to the elements.

The purpose for which the keyboard was designed is to allow a human to translate verbal thoughts into written words for other people to consume.

Do you disagree with those statements?

 

[phiwum]

I assume you have no objection to someone smashing it with a hammer then?



The purpose for which the window was designed is to be a window - to let light into a room without exposing the room to the elements.

The purpose for which the keyboard was designed is to allow a human to translate verbal thoughts into written words for other people to consume.

Do you disagree with those statements?

I'm not sure the issue ought to be the function of windows so much as the rights of property owners. If it's my window and I want to break it, no problem. If it's your window and you don't want it broken but I do so anyway because someone I don't like is speaking at a third venue, then there's an issue.

So, let's not talk about what windows are for. Let's talk about the rights of property owners.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not sure the issue ought to be the function of windows so much as the rights of property owners. If it's my window and I want to break it, no problem. If it's your window and you don't want it broken but I do so anyway because someone I don't like is speaking at a third venue, then there's an issue.

So, let's not talk about what windows are for. Let's talk about the rights of property owners.

Try to keep up: There's no such thing as property, so there's no such thing as property owners, and certainly no such thing as property rights. If an anarchist wants to rearrange "your" window, that's as much of a social good as anything else that might be done with it.

And that's why there's nothing objectionable about asshats destroying the "property" of innocent bystanders, in a fit of pique over speech they don't like.

/caveman

 

[phiwum]

Try to keep up: There's no such thing as property, so there's no such thing as property owners, and certainly no such thing as property rights. If an anarchist wants to rearrange "your" window, that's as much of a social good as anything else that might be done with it.

And that's why there's nothing objectionable about asshats destroying the "property" of innocent bystanders, in a fit of pique over speech they don't like.

/caveman

Sure, were I to give him this claim, then we'd be done. But giving him this claim is (1) asinine and (2) doesn't really justify talk about functions of artifacts.

It doesn't matter what an artifact is for. Either the owner gets to determine what is done with it (within certain limits) or he does not. The intended function is really not that relevant.

And I say this as a person who has spent an unreasonable amount of time thinking about the functions of stuff around us.

 

[theprestige]

Sure, were I to give him this claim, then we'd be done. But giving him this claim is (1) asinine and (2) doesn't really justify talk about functions of artifacts.

It doesn't matter what an artifact is for. Either the owner gets to determine what is done with it (within certain limits) or he does not. The intended function is really not that relevant.

And I say this as a person who has spent an unreasonable amount of time thinking about the functions of stuff around us.

I'm saying you're pretty far down the rabbit hole but it's not too late to climb back out.

 

[caveman1917]

Sure, were I to give him this claim, then we'd be done. But giving him this claim is (1) asinine

No less asinine than giving someone the claim that deities may not exist.

Either the owner gets to determine what is done with it (within certain limits) or he does not.

Don't forget to distinguish between "someone owns this object" and "this specific person owns this object".

Let P be the set of persons, and O the set of objects. Let PROP be a map P -> O denoting who owns what. Even if someone were to accept that property exists ("the owner gets to determine what is done with it" in your statement above) then it still doesn't follow that they have to accept your specific PROP. With |P| being 7e9 and |O| being, let's say, 7e11 that makes about 5e21 possible PROPs. And that's even a serious underestimation, given that an object could be owned by multiple persons, or that there might exist distinct types of property.

Or in terms of the religion analogy, even if I were to give you the claim that a deity exists that doesn't mean that I have to give you the claim that a specific deity exists as opposed to any number of other possible deities.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Can you provide this evidence?

I'm especially interested in evidence that antifa isn't leftist. After all, anyone bothering to do even the most basic reading on anti-fascism (such as its wikipedia article) will quickly find that it is distinctly leftist. One could even say that anti-fascism is a distinguishing feature of the broad left (anarchists, communists, socialists & social-democrats) as opposed to the broad right which does not feature it (liberals, conservatives, nationalists).

[/quote]

Sorry for the delayed response.

Much of the antifa folks are actually anarchists. I don't have time to dig up sources. But I have personal experience with this through music scenes. The anarchist folks tend to have social justice views that are consistent with the left, but they are also literally against government, which, if anything, is more consistent with far-right, anarcho-capitalist libertarians. From a policy perspective, however, they are distinctly neither left nor right, as no ideal they may advocate is even conceivable as policy absent government.

 

[phiwum]

No less asinine than giving someone the claim that deities may not exist.



Don't forget to distinguish between "someone owns this object" and "this specific person owns this object".

Let P be the set of persons, and O the set of objects. Let PROP be a map P -> O denoting who owns what. Even if someone were to accept that property exists ("the owner gets to determine what is done with it" in your statement above) then it still doesn't follow that they have to accept your specific PROP. With |P| being 7e9 and |O| being, let's say, 7e11 that makes about 5e21 possible PROPs. And that's even a serious underestimation, given that an object could be owned by multiple persons, or that there might exist distinct types of property.

Or in terms of the religion analogy, even if I were to give you the claim that a deity exists that doesn't mean that I have to give you the claim that a specific deity exists as opposed to any number of other possible deities.

The shop owner pays for the glass to be installed as a window. It takes willful ignorance to doubt that he now owns that window.

Look, if you really want to pretend that you don't get the convention of property ownership, feel free, but don't expect others to treat intentional confusion as insight.

 

[Belz...]

The shop owner pays for the glass to be installed as a window. It takes willful ignorance to doubt that he now owns that window.

Look, if you really want to pretend that you don't get the convention of property ownership, feel free, but don't expect others to treat intentional confusion as insight.

You think your name is "Bob"? Pfft! It's just a belief system, man!

 

[Thermal]

caveman1917:

In the example of the ownership of the window, everyone from the glass manufacturer to the end owner have agreed to exchange labor and materials in exchange for cash. They have all willingly agreed to these terms according to their agreed upon 'belief systems'. You, on the other hand, have introduced a different 'belief system' that ignores their arrangement. I've asked you a couple times earlier:

Do you therefore believe, as you say, that anyone can unilaterally enforce their belief system on others without their consent?

 

[phiwum]

caveman1917:

In the example of the ownership of the window, everyone from the glass manufacturer to the end owner have agreed to exchange labor and materials in exchange for cash. They have all willingly agreed to these terms according to their agreed upon 'belief systems'. You, on the other hand, have introduced a different 'belief system' that ignores their arrangement. I've asked you a couple times earlier:

Do you therefore believe, as you say, that anyone can unilaterally enforce their belief system on others without their consent?

Good question, by and large, but if I may edit it slightly:

Do you therefore believe, as you say, that anyone has a fundamental right to unilaterally enforce their belief system on others without their consent?

It's obvious that anyone with the power to do so can do so, but that's not what you meant.

 

[phiwum]

You think your name is "Bob"? Pfft! It's just a belief system, man!

Wait. I didn't think my name was Bob. ****. Was I wrong?

 

[Thermal]

Good question, by and large, but if I may edit it slightly:

Do you therefore believe, as you say, that anyone has a fundamental right to unilaterally enforce their belief system on others without their consent?

It's obvious that anyone with the power to do so can do so, but that's not what you meant.

You are quite correct, and in a rational argument your edit is much more appropriate. But the caveman insists that the concept of private property et al is only part of a 'belief system', and that he has another that he can impose on others. The follow-ups by using 'beliefs' as opposed to fundamental rights promise to be a whale of a lot of fun.

 

[Belz...]

Wait. I didn't think my name was Bob. ****. Was I wrong?

Depends what you want to believe.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The answer I usually get is "that won't happen these people have no power and no numbers. They are a dying breed." And on and on, the words white tears get thrown about, then the person just goes on that it is a foregone conclusion that violence will turn out in favor of the "his guys".

Ignoring for a moment the fact this is simply not the case.

It is completly hypocritical. If these people are nothing then by your own "punch up not down" logic you are the bad guy. If they are in such a state that they are out manned and out gunned by people who tend to shun violence and arming themselves, then they really are to be pitied.

But like all sjw logic it is completely flawed. They cannot be so ineffectual that violent conflict is a sure win, yet powerful enough to warrent physical violence just for speaking.

Ah, the age-old dilemma.

Any institution which has enough potential force that it can protect your stuff from those who would take or destroy it over your objections is also, by natural extension, capable of bringing enough potential force to take or destroy your stuff over your objections.

The flaws in this thinking go beyond the theoretical, of course. Gene Sharp observes in "From Dictatorship to Democracy" that in order to wage violent struggle against a regime in the modern era inevitably means accepting either international assistance or the black market, both of which will involve 'strings attached' that immediately bring corruption to the new state being created and eroding its legitimacy before it even gets going.

Of all the possible forms of conflict that can take place, choosing the one you are most outmatched by basically limits the possible outcomes to either failure or a new system just as abusive as the last, possibly even worse.

 

[Mycroft]

So, let's not talk about what windows are for. Let's talk about the rights of property owners.

Except Caveman1917 won't agree with the general consensus on property rights because it doesn't conform with his belief system.

How about instead we point out that rule by intimidation, breaking things when you don't get your way, may not be the best way to improve society?