“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[phiwum]

I disagree. It is a forum where people assert whatever belief system the social group they happen find themselves in holds as true. If this forum were transported to medieval Spain it would be filled with people asserting the existence of God. This can be determined by the arguments used in support of the belief systems being promoted, such as...



Appeal to tradition?



Argument by assertion?

Also, one clearly can do these things, as the subject of this very thread shows.

Of course I appeal to tradition, or more precisely, convention when I refer to legal matters like ownership. Such issues are not like the color of the sky. Rather, they depend on the conventions of a society.

There could be, I suppose, societies in which windows are not owned by anyone, but that is not our social arrangement, and it is silly to pretend you don't know this.

 

[phiwum]

Do you consider atheism a belief system? If not, why would non-acceptance of a specific belief be itself a belief system?



Again, it is up to the proponent of a belief system to argue for it. That would be you. Just because the belief your case rests on is considered "conventional" by some group of people doesn't change that.

If I find a group of people who conventionally believe in invisible elves in their backyard that doesn't mean that the burden is on someone not accepting that belief to argue against it.

I suppose that if you insist on pretending not to understand the rules of the society in which you find yourself, good luck.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you consider atheism a belief system? If not, why would non-acceptance of a specific belief be itself a belief system?

Earlier someone pointed out to you the difference between the existence of God and the existence of religion. I recommend you consider that more.

Laws, customs and mores exist regardless of you or me believing in them. If you choose to disregard them for whatever reason, it's not my responsibility to change your mind.

If you think laws customs and mores should be different from what they are, then it's up to you to figure out how to change them. I would recommend you work on consensus building, but that doesn't seem to be your style.

Again, it is up to the proponent of a belief system to argue for it.

Recognizing that a system of laws, customs and mores exists is not the same as being a proponent for it, nor does it obligate me to explain/justify it to you.

Recognizing that they exist doesn't even imply that I agree with them. The real issue here is what methods are acceptable in changing them. You are a proponent of mob rule, arguing that breaking things, intimidating people, even hurting people are acceptable methods of change, while I prefer consensus building.

You prefer to pick up a brick and throw it at a police officer or through a window? I think that makes you as big of a problem as whatever social issues you're trying to fix. I'm going to gather signatures for my petition, and in doing so I will talk to people one on one.

 

[caveman1917]

I suppose that if you insist on pretending not to understand the rules of the society in which you find yourself, good luck.

GOTO 1352

And feel free to keep going in circles from that point as many times as you want, you clearly don't need my help with that.

 

[caveman1917]

Recognizing that a system of laws, customs and mores exists is not the same as being a proponent for it, nor does it obligate me to explain/justify it to you.

It does if you're going to use it as a basis for an argument for what should be the result of the protester's action, such as "he should be arrested" or something. I'm not sure if you personally made such argument, but plenty of people here in this thread have.

You prefer to pick up a brick and throw it at a police officer or through a window? I think that makes you as big of a problem as whatever social issues you're trying to fix.

Just to be clear here, capitalism kills over 20 million people per year (and that's one hell of an underestimate if there ever was one) as well as leading us headfirst into environmental catastrophy, and you claim that a window being broken or a brick being hurled towards a violent thug is as big of a problem? That makes your opinion quite invalid.

 

[mgidm86]

I was kinda with you until you said "brought in to agitate". Brought in by whom?

The protestors seem to have brought themselves in, as far as I understand it. You make it sound rather more conspiratorial.

What I meant was that a lot of protestors and rioters are from other places and are not necessarily students or from the area. They have appeared at other Milo events, such as this one in Seattle.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/pro...-at-university-of-washington-ends-in-gunfire/

Nobody knows the identity of any of the rioters at Berkeley so I admit I can't prove anything (or don't have time to try), but they appear to be from the same group that did the same thing in Seattle. Black masks, black hoods and clothing, wooden bats and bricks, same tactics.

There was a peaceful protest going on (Berkeley) when these masked rioters marched up in one group, made their way through the crowd to the barriers, then methodically cut through the barriers and began throwing them.

More about out-of-town protestors:
There were protestors at a Tom McClintock Town Hall my father attended last week. His friend knows Tom (R-CA) otherwise he would never attend such a thing. He talked with protestors that had showed up. He asked if they were from the county and if so he'd ask which city - just friendly conversation. Some admitted to being from out of the area, others couldn't name a city when asked and stopped talking.

These were peaceful protestors, not rioters. That's all I have for now, I suppose I am assuming a bit, but it fits a pattern.

I remember during the campaign seeing the same individual "protestors" burning flags in multiple cities at multiple events. They also had little URLs on their signs that were a bit of a giveaway. The URLs in this case were a link to a socialist party website.

Like I said, I can't prove the Berkeley rioters were "outsiders" but there is evidence to suggest it.

 

[mgidm86]

He acts as though he's going to blow our minds by challenging these conventions, as though the understanding that our concepts of ownership, money and law are conventions and could be changed is secret knowledge he's revealing to us.
But he's stuck on could be different and can't get to how and why it should be different.

Yes, one could consider the window to be the property of the protester, but why would that be better? No answer.

Yep, I remember college too. We think we have the world all figured out, then most of us grow up

Or

 

[Mycroft]

It does if you're going to use it as a basis for an argument for what should be the result of the protester's action, such as "he should be arrested" or something. I'm not sure if you personally made such argument, but plenty of people here in this thread have.

The discussion is on how the protester should conduct himself, not what should happen to them after. Denying the laws, customs and mores that govern our society wouldn't change what happens to these people if they are caught and have to answer to them.

Just to be clear here, capitalism kills over 20 million people per year (and that's one hell of an underestimate if there ever was one) as well as leading us headfirst into environmental catastrophy...

Those people weren't killed by capitalism, they just weren't saved by capitalism. They weren't saved by communism, socialism or anarchism either.

That's a typical communist tu-quoque argument. Someone writes a book outlining how many people have been killed by communism, and someone needs to answer it with a tu-quoque rebuttal making a similar claim about capitalism. In typical communist fashion, they have to lie about it by just attributing every death to capitalism without justification.

If you want to save people from dying for lack of food, water and medicine, there is actually a lot you can do. Urging people to throw bricks through windows or at police so that Yiannopoulos can't speak at Berkeley or Murray can't speak at Middlebury isn't among them.

and you claim that a window being broken or a brick being hurled towards a violent thug is as big of a problem? That makes your opinion quite invalid.

The window or the brick isn't the problem, it's the person who throws it. Particularly if their sense of reason is so messed up that they believe they're doing something about world hunger and poverty by preventing lectures at colleges.

 

[phiwum]

Earlier someone pointed out to you the difference between the existence of God and the existence of religion. I recommend you consider that more.

Laws, customs and mores exist regardless of you or me believing in them. If you choose to disregard them for whatever reason, it's not my responsibility to change your mind.

If you think laws customs and mores should be different from what they are, then it's up to you to figure out how to change them. I would recommend you work on consensus building, but that doesn't seem to be your style.



Recognizing that a system of laws, customs and mores exists is not the same as being a proponent for it, nor does it obligate me to explain/justify it to you.

Recognizing that they exist doesn't even imply that I agree with them. The real issue here is what methods are acceptable in changing them. You are a proponent of mob rule, arguing that breaking things, intimidating people, even hurting people are acceptable methods of change, while I prefer consensus building.

You prefer to pick up a brick and throw it at a police officer or through a window? I think that makes you as big of a problem as whatever social issues you're trying to fix. I'm going to gather signatures for my petition, and in doing so I will talk to people one on one.

Well said.

 

[phiwum]

GOTO 1352

And feel free to keep going in circles from that point as many times as you want, you clearly don't need my help with that.

Continue your pretended ignorance if you want. You and I both know that these protesters didn't own those windows. They didn't have the right to break them.

I have often found you to be an insightful fellow. I don't get this ridiculous line of argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yep, I remember college too. We think we have the world all figured out, then most of us grow up

I remember being stoned too, but then I sobered up. Honestly, I think that's closer to his level of thought here.

 

[caveman1917]

The discussion is on how the protester should conduct himself, not what should happen to them after.

Same thing, if the argument is based on acceptance of a certain belief system then it is up to the person promoting the belief system to argue for it.

Denying the laws, customs and mores that govern our society wouldn't change what happens to these people if they are caught and have to answer to them.

I'm not denying that these laws govern your society, at least not in the sense of what the consequences are to people who are caught by your gangs when they fail to behave in a manner consistent with the laws of your society.

However, that does not in any way entail that these laws should be accepted, or can be used as a valid basis for an argument. If you think it does, you should look up what an "argumentum ad baculum" means.

Those people weren't killed by capitalism, they just weren't saved by capitalism. They weren't saved by communism, socialism or anarchism either.

That's a typical communist tu-quoque argument. Someone writes a book outlining how many people have been killed by communism, and someone needs to answer it with a tu-quoque rebuttal making a similar claim about capitalism. In typical communist fashion, they have to lie about it by just attributing every death to capitalism without justification.

 

[caveman1917]

Continue your pretended ignorance if you want. You and I both know that these protesters didn't own those windows. They didn't have the right to break them.

I know no such thing and they had every right to break them. You're the one making a positive claim, and in another thread you've agreed that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.

I have often found you to be an insightful fellow.

Are you ever going to come up with a valid argument for your beliefs? Here's a short list of fallacious arguments so far, please don't use them further:

- Argument by assertion. Simply asserting that your belief is true.
- Ad nauseam. Doing those assertions post after post after post.
- Appealing to tradition. Just because you've traditionally held that belief doesn't mean it's true.
- Appealing to convention. "It is the conventional belief of my people/society."
- Ad baculum. "If you don't behave in a way consistent with my belief a gang will assault you."

I don't get this ridiculous line of argument.

Ridiculous line of argument? It is basic individualist libertarianism. In the words of Max Stirner:

If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master

Or further:

Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will bestow on you in the name of the collectivity...and therefor according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire by service... Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have... The poor become free and the proprietors only when they rise.

Surely, as a student of philosophy, you've come across egoist/individualist libertarianism before?

 

[sadhatter]

I know no such thing and they had every right to break them. You're the one making a positive claim, and in another thread you've agreed that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.



Are you ever going to come up with a valid argument for your beliefs? Here's a short list of fallacious arguments so far, please don't use them further:

- Argument by assertion. Simply asserting that your belief is true.
- Ad nauseam. Doing those assertions post after post after post.
- Appealing to tradition. Just because you've traditionally held that belief doesn't mean it's true.
- Appealing to convention. "It is the conventional belief of my people/society."
- Ad baculum. "If you don't behave in a way consistent with my belief a gang will assault you."

Name me one thing you can do I cannot based on your belief system.

 

[caveman1917]

Today in Berkeley, a fash pisses himself after getting his ass handed back to him when provoking and attacking left-wing counter-protesters. They never seem to like it very much when they actually get to encounter "leftist snowflakes" in real life

That calls for a song!


And an article on the event and on liberal hypocrisy about anti-fascism: Liberal Hypocrisy: Berkeley Clashes Should Serve As Warning

This paragraph in particular is interesting:

Let’s understand the lesson of this latest round of clashes in Berkeley: that the far-Right is becoming more of a threat to autonomous social movements that are anti-capitalist and anti-colonial. In the face of this, the role of liberals in society is to police our actions, not those of our enemies. We shouldn’t expect them to kick up much of a fuss about their hypocrisy, but let us take note of it and push them farther and farther out of our lives, our struggles, and our movements.

What the hell were anarchists in America thinking, having liberals in their movements in the first place...

 

[caveman1917]

Name me one thing you can do I cannot based on your belief system.

What belief system would that be?

 

[Mycroft]

Man, you don't just move goalposts, you make them dance.

I know no such thing and they had every right to break them. You're the one making a positive claim, and in another thread you've agreed that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.

The bolded part is a positive claim. Can you prove it?

Are you ever going to come up with a valid argument for your beliefs? Here's a short list of fallacious arguments so far, please don't use them further:

- Argument by assertion. Simply asserting that your belief is true.
- Ad nauseam. Doing those assertions post after post after post.
- Appealing to tradition. Just because you've traditionally held that belief doesn't mean it's true.
- Appealing to convention. "It is the conventional belief of my people/society."
- Ad baculum. "If you don't behave in a way consistent with my belief a gang will assault you."

Let's see:

1-2. So have you.
3-4. Appealing to tradition and convention is hardly a fallacy if what you're discussing is tradition and convention. The fallacy there was your denial of convention and tradition.
5. Ironically, you're the one arguing the appropriateness of assaulting people and property with gangs if they don't behave in a way consistent with your beliefs.

Ridiculous line of argument? It is basic individualist libertarianism. In the words of Max Stirner:

Or further:

Surely, as a student of philosophy, you've come across egoist/individualist libertarianism before?

Ooh! Pulling out the big guns and citing one of the prophets of your religion.

 

[caveman1917]

The bolded part is a positive claim. Can you prove it?

Meh, I've just used the given framework of understanding to express my statement in. I'm perfectly fine with saying that he had no "right" to rearrange the window and that nobody else had a "right" to stop him from doing so. I'm even more fine with throwing out the entire rhetoric of "rights".

 

[The Big Dog]

Today in Berkeley, a .... fash

time to first lie, new record?

 

[Mycroft]

Meh, I've just used the given framework of understanding to express my statement in. I'm perfectly fine with saying that he had no "right" to rearrange the window and that nobody else had a "right" to stop him from doing so. I'm even more fine with throwing out the entire rhetoric of "rights".

Dancing goalposts.

Why should anyone care what Max Stirner said?