All of which suggests a direct correlation to the sort of politics involved. What's inviting is a take down of these (supposedly) wrong and inaccurate ideas of the left/liberals. This would not seem to be merely "aesthetic" bringing in viewers, but be drawing on a present desire amongst viewers to see the left/liberal understanding of society and its problems taken down.-- i.e. it's part of the white supremacist positions or sympathies already present in our culture. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Maybe, but I contend it's also an unfortunate ramification of progressive excess.

For example, when you make the argument that all white people/men are by definition "racist/sexist" because statistically they tend to benefit from a system that disproportionately distributes benefits and burdens in their favor, there's this large swath of the population (mostly young white men) who feel unfairly generalized by it, and as a result they tend to want to see such an argument rebuked (and if that rebuke can be severe, then they get emotional catharsis to boot).

Alleging that wanting to see your argument "destroyed" is evidence of supremacist tendencies only makes sense because your argument hinges on the premise of a supremacist system operating as the dominant causal factor determining all social outcomes in the first place.

It's a Kafka trap, where my denial will be evidence of my guilt. You've got to do better than that.

Opposing the left is not tantamount to white supremacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

Whiteness is the most violent fucking system to ever breath!

And where exactly does such an idea lead to in practice? The articulate members of the PC Left will surely make excuses for these excessive statements. Conservative thinkers are in the same situation. Some of their fans surely say things that are just as brutal and irrational. It's also not surprising that white men often resent anti-white talk and favor 'representatives' who object to this talk.

Another theme: some posters implied above that they could easily OWN or DESTROY Shapiro. That may be correct. But here we all are in the dark like anonymous rats. I'm not a big fan of Shapiro (or of Peterson), but it occurs to me how much more difficult it must be to actually wear one's ideas in public. It's a big deal these days. It almost has to be a career. Any sufficiently exciting opinions are going to offend or scare employers.

This reminds me of my last theme.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. — Marx

The PC Left seems to envision a new, global human being that is beyond race, gender, and sexuality. To do this, however, it needs to obsess over race, gender, and sexuality...until utopia arrives.

Can't our society be even a teensy bit merit based? — VagabondSpectre

How? What would the mechanism be by which this would be brought about? Is there some gatekeeper somewhere that I'm unaware of ensuring that YouTube videos, Facebook news, campus tours and online opinion columns are all written only by those with some actual intellectual merit? As far as I know, all these platforms (including academic publishing) are run by companies whose objective is to maximise profits for their shareholders. It's not some crazy conspiracy, it's written in black and white on their aims and objectives statement. It's actually a legal obligation. So how would merit become a factor? Nowhere is it written that all publications must also be somehow meritous. It is only necessary that they increase profits.

But which came first, the famous chicken or the famous egg? — VagabondSpectre

I don't think I understand what you mean by this I'm afraid.

If I attended a Shapiro event and get in line to ask him a question, my question would be heard by his millions of followers, as would his response. If my question challenges the merit of his political views, then he's going to have to debate their merit. — VagabondSpectre

Not at all. First there's the 'if' at the beginning, but let's say you jump whatever hurdles are required to get that lucky break. Your question would be heard by hundreds of followers. Whether it is heard by millions of followers is determined entirely by whoever has access to the largest publishing platform. It can be edited out of any video, or transcript. Described in unfavourable terms in any commentary or write-up. It's not difficult to make an insightful and penetrating question sound dumb and easily answered when you control the medium through which that question is going to be reported.

Yes, democracy is mostly a popularity contest, but should we lose, we ought not up-end the entire system; we should try to be more popular. — VagabondSpectre

Why?

You're not entitled to any seats at any tables, neither am I, and neither is Shapiro. We're all entitled to scream loudly in the wilderness, passionately on a soap box, financially through political donation, and discretely through our votes. Shapiro happens to have many seats at many tables, — VagabondSpectre

You see, when I talk about entitlement to be heard, you play the nihilist and say "no one has a right to anything", when I use the argument that we're entitled to use whatever tactics we see fit, you play the noble and say "there is a moral right as to what tactics one should avoid". Which is it? Are we arguing about what should be (in which case your counter with regards to a 'place at the table' should be a normative one, not a descriptive one), or are we arguing about what actually is (in which case we actually can use whatever tactics are legal)?

we could choose our own informal representative, and through mutual support, put them in a seat at one of those tables (that's what Shapiro's followers did). — VagabondSpectre

No, we couldn't. Not if the representative in question represents an unpopular or non-commercialisable view, because the mechanisms by which Shapiro became popular require those two things. What we're talking about about here is the situation where a person (or small group of people) believe a view to be right, in a moral sense, but neither popular, nor commercial. Should they then just give up, or what other means do you think they have to bring about what they think is right?

Is trying to bring about what you think is right an entitlement only of those whose views are popular or commercial enough to have a public figure they can put their support behind? If not, what recourse do these people have?

How can we justify the ethical right to decide for other citizens which political ideas are O.K or not O.K to legitimize? — VagabondSpectre

Everyone is deciding "for other citizens" here. If the university allows the lecture to go ahead, they are deciding for the other members of that community that his ideas are OK to legitimise by association with their university. If protesters were to have successfully blocked him from speaking, they would have decided for the other members of that community that his ideas were not OK to legitimise by association with their university. Either way someone is deciding what ideas get legitimised or not, and it's not on the basis of merit. It's whoever has the most power.

Democracy is supposed to be about everyone being entitled to their opinions and their input (through the aforementioned rights, not privileges such as an invitation to speak on a campus), so aren't you kind of throwing democracy out the window by assuming that your own ideas and beliefs are the final and correct politics (or that Shapiro's conservatism should be verboten)? — VagabondSpectre

I think it's a big push to say that 'democracy' is somehow about the rights people currently have to speak. Those rights are an entirely pragmatic matter, and not part of a broad concept like democracy. Recently, in Ireland, the issues were discussed using citizen's assemblies, a system instigated by the government containing randomly selected members of the community who were then entitled to a 'place at the table'. Other democratic governments have chosen not to do this. So one's right to be heard does not seem to be linked to democracy as a concept. The means one has at one's disposal will vary.

If some democratic government believes that a random selection of community representatives have a 'right' to be heard, but people who just happen to be famous did not get an invite, then it seems a perfectly legitimate aspect of democracy to give certain people platforms to speak and deny platforms to others.

This is how they would respond — VagabondSpectre

I'm not really interested in how 'they' would respond. I don't think it is right to constrain one's tactics by trying to second-guess what one's opponents will make of it. They will spin absolutely anything we do into a negative. It's pointless trying to limit their ability to do that, especially if doing so limits our own methods.

they would not have given him the attention that has propelled him to his current level of fame, — VagabondSpectre

I thought you said it was his hard work and popularity?

There's really no feelings involved in property ownership, except maybe in some edge dispute cases (like squatters rights and such). Berkeley owned the venue (IIRC) and they legally rented it to the conservative student union. Trespassing without permission with the intention of disrupting a private event may result in both criminal and civil suits (criminal for the crimes, civil to sue for damages resulting from torts). — VagabondSpectre

As I said, I don't really care much for law in this respect. I don't agree with property ownership on the basis of land purchase and I don't believe that ownership of land confers any rights over the community who occupy it. So...

Do the students own Berkeley? — VagabondSpectre

...yes.

in the modern world, we've created relatively sophisticated systems (moral, ethical, political, legal, rational, scientific, empirical, metaphysical, theological, secular, etc, etc, etc...) that help us navigate safely and consistently from feelings to force. — VagabondSpectre

This is too much to get into here. Suffice to say I disagree that the institutions you list are a means to safely and consistently navigate from feelings to force. The history of modern civilisation has been an almost unbroken fight for power on the basis of force.

We have laws protecting individual rights (such as property rights) because if we allow ourselves to act fast and loosely according to our felt connections, we're not guaranteed to behave any better than an angry mob, and we just wind up creating more problems for ourselves and everyone else. — VagabondSpectre

Look to your history books. If you can detail me a single instance of a law protecting property coming about after a community-wide discussion about the anarchistic ramifications if we don't, I'd be fascinated to see it. All I've found so far is laws put in place by wealthy landowners in order to apply the force of the army to back up their claim to land.

If student groups really did start to claim ownership of their universities, then many of them would promptly go out of business and liquidate their assets, because if they aren't allowed to control their own property, then they have no way of controlling their own financial and physical security. — VagabondSpectre

Have you any evidence to back this up. I could point to the many successful community run enterprises and worker-owned companies in opposition.

As I said before, I urge you to seek reform before revolution, if only because we might not survive the latter. — VagabondSpectre

Well, the latter is coming. To quote one of my favourite passages from Stephen Emmott when asked what he would do in response to the current global situation he replied "teach my son how to use a gun".

You see, when I talk about entitlement to be heard, you play the nihilist and say "no one has a right to anything", when I use the argument that we're entitled to use whatever tactics we see fit, you play the noble and say "there is a moral right as to what tactics one should avoid". Which is it? Are we arguing about what should be (in which case your counter with regards to a 'place at the table' should be a normative one, not a descriptive one), or are we arguing about what actually is (in which case we actually can use whatever tactics are legal)? — Isaac

You're equivocating "the right to be heard" with "the privilege to speak at Berkely", and you're also equivocating "not having the right to speak at Berkeley" with "not having any rights at all". You're trying to justify the use of force as political speech, but you're consistently equivocating in your attempt to do so. You complained that you have never been invited to Berkeley and used that as evidence showing you have no right to be heard.. I have tried to be very specific, and I certainly didn't state "no one has a right to anything"... "We don't have a right to any seats to any tables" means just what it says. Private tables are private platforms, and access to governmental seats are decided through votes, not passion.

Specifically, you're using your undefined notion of what should be to justify your argument that the use of whatever tactics are justifiable, and I'm saying that legally, democratically, pragmatically, and morally, your tactics are wrong.

No, we couldn't. Not if the representative in question represents an unpopular or non-commercialisable view, because the mechanisms by which Shapiro became popular require those two things. What we're talking about about here is the situation where a person (or small group of people) believe a view to be right, in a moral sense, but neither popular, nor commercial. Should they then just give up, or what other means do you think they have to bring about what they think is right? — Isaac

You are saying that in order to be popular, first, you need to be popular, which makes no sense.

Why is your view non-commercializable or unpopular?

Is trying to bring about what you think is right an entitlement only of those whose views are popular or commercial enough to have a public figure they can put their support behind? If not, what recourse do these people have? — Isaac

If the alt-right is commercial enough to have public figures, then you can have figures too. The argument that your views aren't commercial enough to get their own pundit is not at all realistic (in fact, corporations platform progressive views more than any other). Ironically, the only hard barrier to any political persuasion finding representatives is the very censorship which some have advocated for in this thread.

If the university allows the lecture to go ahead, they are deciding for the other members of that community that his ideas are OK to legitimise by association with their university. — Isaac

We're not supposed to be unthinking lemmings who look to an intellectual authority to decide whether or not a private group of students should be permitted to discuss their beliefs. By telling conservative students their beliefs aren't "legitimate" and that they have no right to express them, we're legitimizing worse.

I thought you said it was his hard work and popularity? — Isaac

Shapiro had been growing his popularity for around ten years, but it wasn't until antifa started barricading his events that the mainstream media finally started giving him undue attention. The story became how there's this "culture war" with racists on one side and PC babies on the other (depending on who you ask). The rise to his current level of fame is thanks to the negative attention given to him by the left, and his ability to spin discussions in his own favor.

Do the students own Berkeley? — VagabondSpectre


...yes. — Isaac

Actually, The Berkeley Group Holdings plc owns UoBerkeley. The students are just paying customers (the conservative and the liberal students alike).

This is too much to get into here. Suffice to say I disagree that the institutions you list are a means to safely and consistently navigate from feelings to force. The history of modern civilisation has been an almost unbroken fight for power on the basis of force. — Isaac

It's been an almost unbroken fight in terms of military vs military and nation v nation, but the deaths resulting from war have continuously plummeted, and while they are still too numerous, are proportionally smaller than perhaps ever before. I think that at this point in history we're more free (in the west) than ever before from abusive government, but we also happen to be more beholden than ever before to corporations, which are forces unto themselves.

In the senses that corporations use undue force in politics, I do want to see change (which may inexorably require force) but I don;t want to see it achieved through the whimsical arbitrariness of mob impulse.

Look to your history books. If you can detail me a single instance of a law protecting property coming about after a community-wide discussion about the anarchistic ramifications if we don't, I'd be fascinated to see it. All I've found so far is laws put in place by wealthy landowners in order to apply the force of the army to back up their claim to land. — Isaac

When police arrest thieves and return the stolen property to the victim...

It happens every day. But my point isn't that laws protect everyone equally, my point is that if we don't have laws then the alternative would be worse. For example, a few hundred years ago, if I wrongfully accused you of horse or cattle theft in a frontier town where there were no marshals/police, all it would take to have you unjustly killed would be to get enough people angry about it. This point is deeper than the value of democracy, it's one of the pillars of civilization itself.

We don't need to consider the anarchistic ramifications every-time we uphold the law, and every-time an innocent person is declared not guilty, and a guilty person is found guilty, in a fair court of law, it's a victory for civilization itself (our ability to live together and successfully in large groups).

Have you any evidence to back this up. I could point to the many successful community run enterprises and worker-owned companies in opposition — Isaac

Let the inmates run the asylum? :chin:

Well, the latter is coming. To quote one of my favourite passages from Stephen Emmott when asked what he would do in response to the current global situation he replied "teach my son how to use a gun". — Isaac

That's just not the right attitude...

First you teach him what guns are, and what they are for, and why they are dangerous. Then you teach him about gun safety. Start him off with a pellet gun, and teach him how to load and shoot targets safely. Once he is old enough, and under direct and expert guidance, then he can learn how to shoot a gun.

So I take it you're a supporter of the second amendment (gun rights)?

I wonder...

If you were attending a gun safety seminar, and a group of anti-gun rights activists showed up to disrupt and vandalize the event, how would you respond?

yes, yeah. A lot to chew on there

Ok, first thing - Scruton's 'context' - the estate, the horses (there were horses, right?). My first thought is, if you lose that, 'good!'

The calming luxury of an estate points toward the calming, sober, power of the master. The meaning of a speech delivered in a warm drawing-room after a tour around the property bristles with everything you've just seen. and the plight of placeless gypsies in Hungary very easily, naturally, rolls into a momentary distaste for [those who would want to disrupt this eminently Placeful Harmony]

from Henry James The Bostonians : a fervent 19th century feminist spending an evening at a wealthy nonfeminist's place:

I must add, however that there was a moment when she came near being happy - or, at any rate, reflected that it was a pity she could not be so[...]His guests sat scattered in the red firelight, listening, silent, in comfortable attitudes; there was faint fragrance from the burning logs, which mingled with the perfume of Schubert and Mendelssohn; the covered lamps made a glow here and there,, and the cabinets and brackets produced brown shadows, out of which some precious object gleamed[...]Her nerves were calmed, her problems - for the time - subsided. Civilization, under such an influence, in such a setting, appeared to have done its work; harmony ruled the scene; human life ceased to be a battle. She went so far as to ask herself why one should have a quarrel with it; the relations of men and women, in that picturesque grouping, had not the air of being internecine. — James

But I understand your broader point to be that internet discourse is a kind of flattening all around. Where everything is yanked from its context, and you reach a sort of critical mass of 'yanking' where the flat space of the internet doesn't reflect a given world anymore, but, instead, everything in the world is already measuring itself against how it would seem in the flat space. Gradually quotes aren't cited in a neutral medium; the medium itself dictates how people speak, all speakers now anticipating how their quotes will be reworked.

In that regard, I agree with you. The tweeted protestations or lamentations of the 'sane' are a performative contradiction It's like Comey doing his sober perspective in biblical tweets (waters of righteousness or something). He's immediately infected, and made memeable. Everyone gets sucked in.

But do you think - My feeling is that a return to context *is* good, even if the Scruton context is abhorrent. Where the speaker draws from a local situation and works with it. I know that's a little luddite, because it means logging off - but I don't see how you can counteract the sheer dissolving momentum of internet discourse - for the reasons you mention - through anything short of dropping out of it. Any attempts to intervene in the medium itself will get sucked into it.

@fdrake There's also something to be said about 'thinkpieces' which correspond to the 'above it all' position I mentioned. These have proliferated like crazy. There are thinkpieces on thinkpieces, of course, so I'm saying nothing new. It's weird, because like - Dostoevsky's Notes From The Underground,say, would have been a 'thinkpiece' at the time. Maybe even Erasmus or Voltaire or Swift. But is it the same thing?

You're equivocating "the right to be heard" with "the privilege to speak at Berkely", and you're also equivocating "not having the right to speak at Berkeley" with "not having any rights at all". — VagabondSpectre

No, it's about the fact that when it comes to the right to speak at Berkeley, you play the nihilistic and say hat Berkeley is a private institution and has the right to allow or disallow whomever it wants. If we're basing rights here solely on law, then the protesters have the 'right' to block entry, in fact do absolutely anything that it is not actually illegal. But when we talk about the protesters, you switch terms. No longer are we talking about what they have a right to do by law, we start talking about what they should do, in terms of not escalating violence, not fanning the flames etc. So why is it legitimate to talk of what the protestors should do morally in their actions, but not about what Berkeley should do morally in controlling the speaking platforms they own?

You are saying that in order to be popular, first, you need to be popular, which makes no sense. — VagabondSpectre

No, I'm saying in order to be popular you must be popular in principle. What will be popular is not a mystery, advertising companies predict it all the time. In order to popular you must be one of the things which it is known is going to be popular.

The argument that your views aren't commercial enough to get their own pundit is not at all realistic (in fact, corporations platform progressive views more than any other). Ironically, the only hard barrier to any political persuasion finding representatives is the very censorship which some have advocated for in this thread. — VagabondSpectre

So your counter argument is to just ignore everything I've said with a blanket denial. Haven't we just been discussing the barriers to some viewpoints getting a platform? Only controversial views sell advertising space, if your views are not controversial you will not have the same platforms available to you as controversial views.
Only popular views are worth promoting. What is going to be popular is fairly well predictable and if your views don't fit into these categories you will not have the same platforms available. It is pretty unequivocal (and to be honest a fairly uncontroversial view) that certain ideas are more 'sellable' than others for reasons other than their actual merit. So no, censorship of the kind I'm advocating is not the only barrier to political persuasion, its not even close.

We're not supposed to be unthinking lemmings who look to an intellectual authority to decide whether or not a private group of students should be permitted to discuss their beliefs. — VagabondSpectre

What we are 'supposed' to be and what we absolutely evidently are, are two different things. Your faith in humanity is misplaced. Between 18 and 31% of Americans don't even believe in evolution. Is that the crowd you're expecting to critically appraise what the association with Berkeley 'really' means?

Actually, The Berkeley Group Holdings plc owns UoBerkeley. The students are just paying customers (the conservative and the liberal students alike). — VagabondSpectre

As I said. I don't accept the legitimacy of legal ownership of property in this respect.

When police arrest thieves and return the stolen property to the victim... — VagabondSpectre

And the law by which that prosecution is made came about as a considered means of avoiding anarchy? That was my question. I was asking for the evidence of the avoidance of anarchy being the motivating factor in creating a law, not the protection of the property of those responsible for creating it.

Some of the law protects the citizens of the country from unjust harm. Some of it doesn't. Some of it actually perpetuates unjust harm. So 'the law' doesn't mean anything in moral terms. One still has to make an independent decision about whether one's actions are moral, and whether they are against the law or not need not enter into that.

Let the inmates run the asylum? — VagabondSpectre

They're not inmates. They're students and workers. And yes, let them run the companies.

So I take it you're a supporter of the second amendment (gun rights)? — VagabondSpectre

No. I'm a strong opponent of the second ammendment. Why would I want everyone else to be armed too? Just my family, armed illegally, would be the most secure insurance.

No, it's about the fact that when it comes to the right to speak at Berkeley, you play the nihilistic and say hat Berkeley is a private institution and has the right to allow or disallow whomever it wants. If we're basing rights here solely on law, then the protesters have the 'right' to block entry, in fact do absolutely anything that it is not actually illegal. But when we talk about the protesters, you switch terms. No longer are we talking about what they have a right to do by law, we start talking about what they should do, in terms of not escalating violence, not fanning the flames etc. So why is it legitimate to talk of what the protestors should do morally in their actions, but not about what Berkeley should do morally in controlling the speaking platforms they own? — Isaac

There's no such "right to block entry" in this context, except to one's own property. By barricading doors to interfere with others, we're approaching dangerously close to intimidation, and we're likely trespassing. I'm no lawyer, but this isn't rocket-law.

I think that students absolutely have the right to protest and lobby their university, but I don't think they should be able to use physical force against the university or any other law abiding citizen in order to achieve their political ends. I'm saying don't use physical force or violence to achieve political goals (especially in as round-a-bout a way as shutting down the events of the opposition, which merely energizes them).

No, I'm saying in order to be popular you must be popular in principle. What will be popular is not a mystery, advertising companies predict it all the time. In order to popular you must be one of the things which it is known is going to be popular. — Isaac

Only controversial views sell advertising space, if your views are not controversial you will not have the same platforms available to you as controversial views.
Only popular views are worth promoting. What is going to be popular is fairly well predictable and if your views don't fit into these categories you will not have the same platforms available. It is pretty unequivocal (and to be honest a fairly uncontroversial view) that certain ideas are more 'sellable' than others for reasons other than their actual merit. So no, censorship of the kind I'm advocating is not the only barrier to political persuasion, its not even close. — Isaac

I said that the only hard barrier to platforms is censorship. My claim is more specific than the one you've addressed, and my criticism is that your own position is both controversial and popular, and is already highly platformed in new media.

If your political ideologies already have ample platforms, why barricade Shapiro's?

What we are 'supposed' to be and what we absolutely evidently are, are two different things. Your faith in humanity is misplaced. Between 18 and 31% of Americans don't even believe in evolution. Is that the crowd you're expecting to critically appraise what the association with Berkeley 'really' means? — Isaac

I'm an atheist, but I don't see why people's belief in angels and demons is a problem that can't be mitigated. After all, America remains the leader of the free world despite all that (and so far, despite Trump), so the long term trajectory is against you.

And the law by which that prosecution is made came about as a considered means of avoiding anarchy? That was my question. I was asking for the evidence of the avoidance of anarchy being the motivating factor in creating a law, not the protection of the property of those responsible for creating it — Isaac

Whether the original intention of a law is to preserve order or not, they tend to only stick around if they do. Ostensibly the modern world upholds laws in order to maintain civil order (both to protect individuals from each-other, and to protect individuals from the government itself). Lots of times we have retarded reasons written down in old dusty books and documents (such as "Under the divine auspices of Her Majesty's authority blah blah blah"), but by now everyone knows why we still need them.

Some of the law protects the citizens of the country from unjust harm. Some of it doesn't. Some of it actually perpetuates unjust harm. So 'the law' doesn't mean anything in moral terms. One still has to make an independent decision about whether one's actions are moral, and whether they are against the law or not need not enter into that. — Isaac

Sometimes the law corresponds to what is moral, but you also have the democratic right to try and have the law changed. If changing the laws you disagree with is completely impossible, then maybe insurrection is the right rub, but maybe the harm you would or could cause in doing so would outweigh your initial justification. In more common terms, do your ends justify your means?

They're not inmates. They're students and workers. And yes, let them run the companies — Isaac

How should they decide who gets to be CEO of their shiny new companies? Should they take it in turns in some sort of semi-autonomous anarcho-syndicist commune, with ratification of major decisions by simple majority?

This is where "merit" really has a lot of merit...

No. I'm a strong opponent of the second ammendment. Why would I want everyone else to be armed too? Just my family, armed illegally, would be the most secure insurance. — Isaac

I'm willing to bet that, statistically, owning a gun decreases one's life expectancy...

There's no such "right to block entry" in this context, except to one's own property. By barricading doors to interfere with others, we're approaching dangerously close to intimidation, and we're likely trespassing. I'm no lawyer, but this isn't rocket-law. — VagabondSpectre

As far as I'm aware, 9 people were arrested, so, pending further evidence we can only presume the actions of the remainder were considered by police to be either legal, or non-prosecutable at least. Notwithstanding that, my comment was only intended to try and draw the discussion away from what's legally allowed to what's morally acceptable. The two are not the same.

My claim is more specific than the one you've addressed — VagabondSpectre

Maybe, but it took a place in the argument which carried a greater weight. If censorship is the only 'hard' barrier (whatever that means) then the other factors I mentioned remain as barriers.

my criticism is that your own position is both controversial and popular, and is already highly platformed in new media. — VagabondSpectre

I don't think I've yet mentioned my position. Its certainly not popular as I've barely heard it repeated in the media. The point I'm making here is about the right of communities to determine (forcefully if necessary) who they want as contributing members.

Put simply, my view is that the people of Berkeley University form a community (from CEOs to cleaners), that community collectively are responsible for Berkeley (regardless of legal property rights, with which I do not morally agree here), a community demonstrates its moral code by ostracising those who do not adhere to it. Where there is disagreement, there will be clashes as one group tries to ostracise the other.

If I were one of those groups I would certainly be looking to ostracise the other with as little violence as possible because I believe causing unnecessary harm is generally bad, but I wouldn't rule it out. It depends on the threat.

I have no wish to prevent someone like Shapiro from speaking anywhere in the world (unless no community supports him). I'm defending the right of one given community to demonstrate (by whatevermmeans prove necessary yet remain moral) that he is not welcome to contribute.

Whether the original intention of a law is to preserve order or not, they tend to only stick around if they do. — VagabondSpectre

Again, I'd need to know the mechanism by which this is ensured in order to consider it. Unless you're saying the good ones remain entirely by chance. The only mechanism I'm aware of that can remove a law in most Western countries is the democratically elected government. Is there some force I'm unaware of which prevents people from electing governments for reasons other than the prevention of anarchy? If not, I'm struggling to see what would force a government to remove laws not designed only to maintain civil order.

How should they decide who gets to be CEO of their shiny new companies? Should they take it in turns in some sort of semi-autonomous anarcho-syndicist commune, with ratification of major decisions by simple majority? — VagabondSpectre

I really don't think explaining how worker owned coops function would be on topic here. Suffice to say many do, and the manner in which they do varies.

I'm willing to bet that, statistically, owning a gun decreases one's life expectancy... — VagabondSpectre

Statistically it probably does. But as my statistician colleague is fond of reminding me, there is a difference between incidence and probability, and the one thing you can almost guarantee your own probability is not going to be is the incidence. No one is average.

I don't think I've yet mentioned my position. Its certainly not popular as I've barely heard it repeated in the media. The point I'm making here is about the right of communities to determine (forcefully if necessary) who they want as contributing members. — Isaac

As far as I can gather, you're a socialist leaning anti-fascist.

In any case, the views of the Berkeley students who use force to shut down conservative events seem to have ample platforms of their own.

And there's an irony afoot. The "Antifa" movement of today mirrors some of the tactics and attitudes of the original fascists. Purging our communities of undesirables might not turn out like you'd hoped...'

Put simply, my view is that the people of Berkeley University form a community (from CEOs to cleaners), that community collectively are responsible for Berkeley (regardless of legal property rights, with which I do not morally agree here), a community demonstrates its moral code by ostracising those who do not adhere to it. Where there is disagreement, there will be clashes as one group tries to ostracise the other. — Isaac

I understand what you're saying in principle, it's called "distributive justice", but in the broader "community" of which Berkeley is just one part, there is disagreement about what is moral, and who we should therefore ostracize as a result. A huge swath of the American people hold conservative views, so if Berkeley and every progressive institution closes their doors to conservative leaning students, we'll just be creating division which will lead to more conflict instead of cooperation or mutual compromise.

If I were one of those groups I would certainly be looking to ostracise the other with as little violence as possible because I believe causing unnecessary harm is generally bad, but I wouldn't rule it out. It depends on the threat.

I have no wish to prevent someone like Shapiro from speaking anywhere in the world (unless no community supports him). I'm defending the right of one given community to demonstrate (by whatevermmeans prove necessary yet remain moral) that he is not welcome to contribute. — Isaac

It's that "by whatever means necessary, yet remain moral" line that gives me pause.

Are you defining what is moral by appealing to what you think is necessary?

The ends always justify the means?

The only mechanism I'm aware of that can remove a law in most Western countries is the democratically elected government. Is there some force I'm unaware of which prevents people from electing governments for reasons other than the prevention of anarchy? If not, I'm struggling to see what would force a government to remove laws not designed only to maintain civil order. — Isaac

Courts often strike down laws in practice because they violate more fundamentally important and well established laws (namely, individual rights). Politicians and bureaucrats draft bills, parliamentary/senatorial representatives ratify them, police enforce them, and then the courts interpret them. If a certain law cannot be justly enforced, or if a given interpretation makes no sense, then individual judges can essentially overturn or reject said law (and in doing so they can set an influential precedent, which we all learn from). Case law works because it's constantly being put to the test; it can evolve according to whether or not it's actually working, or as the values of the people change. If the enforcement of a particular law causes too many problems or upsets for too many people, judges might strike them down and politicians/bureaucrats will have them addressed.

I really don't think explaining how worker owned coops function would be on topic here. Suffice to say many do, and the manner in which they do varies. — Isaac

Students attend university to learn, not to occupy or control it.

As far as I can gather, you're a socialist leaning anti-fascist. — VagabondSpectre

That's a very broad brush. Even Shapiro does not support zero welfare and he certainly claims to oppose fascism, so I think socialist leaning anti-fascist describes almost the entire political landscape. No one is suggesting that the ecomony should be entirely unregulated with regards to progressive redistribution (welfare/minimum wage/stock option/government funded services) and no one is suggesting that Americans are the master race and non-Americans should be purged because they are lesser beings.

The arguments are about exactly how much wealth redistribution there should be and to exactly what extent ethnic/national groupings should be allowed to migrate.

The detail of my own political opinion is way off topic, but the point is that some positions on this scale (wealth redistribution, ethnic/national migration) are unpopular and unrepresented.

The point about some views not having platforms is not that it justifies action for those groups, it's to re-affirm that we live in a society where denial of platforms is a perfectly normal commonplace event. If I went to Berkeley conservative Union and asked to speak, they would say no. They would deny me a platform, it's normal practice. We're arguing about how and why, not whether.

Purging our communities of undesirables might not turn out like you'd hoped...' — VagabondSpectre

It may not, but there's nothing I can do about that. Purging our community of undesirables is happening all the time. What we're arguing over is the method, not the activity. Look at a community in rural Afghanistan, a community of Australian Aborigines, a community of middle class New Yorkers. Are you supposing that the almost complete homogeneity you see within those communities (when compared to between them) is random? No, it's the result of purging undesirables, and it's usually done by ostracisation.

There's a reason why there aren't any mainstream fascists here in Europe, and it's not because we debated their ideas. It's because we shot them.

in the broader "community" of which Berkeley is just one part, there is disagreement about what is moral, and who we should therefore ostracize as a result. A huge swath of the American people hold conservative views, so if Berkeley and every progressive institution closes their doors to conservative leaning students, we'll just be creating division which will lead to more conflict instead of cooperation or mutual compromise. — VagabondSpectre

I don't see any reason to think that would be the case. You're talking about this as if it were a question of learning about other cultures by intermixing, like we should avoid ending up with a 'conservative' university and a 'liberal' one, so that people mix and understand where each other are coming from. But this is not about where people are coming from. It's about greed and xenophobia. These are moral issues. No one would say we should have a few child-killers in the community so we can mix and understand where different people are coming from.

It's really as simple as saying that some attitudes are simply not tolerated within a community. Again, this is perfectly normal practice, the debate is (or should be) about what attitudes are disallowed and what means a community can engage in to make that position clear. That some attitudes are disallowed, and that some methods are employed to make that clear is unquestionable.

It's that "by whatever means necessary, yet remain moral" line that gives me pause.

Are you defining what is moral by appealing to what you think is necessary?

The ends always justify the means? — VagabondSpectre

No. What is moral is what is moral. It's that the morality of behaviour is contextual. It's not immoral to kill (it's immoral to kill someone who isn't an immediate threat, or in need of mercy killing, or...). So no, the ends do not always justify the means, but of course they sometimes do. I think that's the case for everyone?

Personally, when anti-immigrant and anti-welfare sentiment is at risk of being escalated thousands of people's lives and livelihoods are at risk. I think a little scuffle is a more than justified way of demonstrating how unwelcome that sentiment is.

If the enforcement of a particular law causes too many problems or upsets for too many people, judges might strike them down and politicians/bureaucrats will have them addressed. — VagabondSpectre

True, but that just acts as a means to ensure the laws are enforceable. It still doesn't seem to be a mechanism whereby laws are filtered to ensure they focus on maintaining a healthy degree of order.

Students attend university to learn, not to occupy or control it. — VagabondSpectre

Can't they do both?

ssu consider actually reading the book on the Koch Brothers that I recommended instead of just blithely waving aside accusations on how they propagate their political and economic ideology. I will note that the author of the book Jane Mayer, wrote about how George Soros spent millions on the 2004 election. But I'm fairly tired of how you consider your clear ignorance on the subject matter as equivocal to my engagement with it. — Maw

When it comes to billionaires giving money to political movements, parties and outright individual politicians, one naturally has to make the difference between propagation of political and economic ideology and what is simply lobbying for personal gain. For some like the Koch brothers to hold power in the GOP it's more about the latter. Yet typically things are promoted as ideological choices.

The point about some views not having platforms is not that it justifies action for those groups, it's to re-affirm that we live in a society where denial of platforms is a perfectly normal commonplace event. If I went to Berkeley conservative Union and asked to speak, they would say no. They would deny me a platform, it's normal practice. We're arguing about how and why, not whether — Isaac

Then my argument is that one political faction of Berkeley U's students should not be able to control the platforms of an opposing faction through force. The opposing faction may have rented a venue from Berkeley U, and you can say that conservative views are immoral, therefore students ought to censor it, but the opposition could make the same blanket statement as justification for shutting down an event that you or I might support. I'm saying that just because some students feel like they have the right to occupy Berkeley doesn't make it so. It's not fair to Berkeley and it's not fair to the opposition which would be censored.

If you want to actually establish that the opposition is immoral, delivering an argument or a rebuke at the event in question would be your primary means to actually persuade them.

It may not, but there's nothing I can do about that. Purging our community of undesirables is happening all the time. What we're arguing over is the method, not the activity. Look at a community in rural Afghanistan, a community of Australian Aborigines, a community of middle class New Yorkers. Are you supposing that the almost complete homogeneity you see within those communities (when compared to between them) is random? No, it's the result of purging undesirables, and it's usually done by ostracisation.

There's a reason why there aren't any mainstream fascists here in Europe, and it's not because we debated their ideas. It's because we shot them. — Isaac

You're advocating for using the tactics of the racists and the fascists in order to get rid of them, and because of that you run the risk of merely replacing them.

It's really as simple as saying that some attitudes are simply not tolerated within a community. Again, this is perfectly normal practice, the debate is (or should be) about what attitudes are disallowed and what means a community can engage in to make that position clear. That some attitudes are disallowed, and that some methods are employed to make that clear is unquestionable. — Isaac

If you want to censor Shapiro's ideas, then I'm worried that you would wind up censoring basically everything else that you don't agree with.

One of the few kinds of speech I'm in favor of censoring is speech that calls for violence against a specified group or individual. Why, again, must Shapiro be purged?

Personally, when anti-immigrant and anti-welfare sentiment is at risk of being escalated thousands of people's lives and livelihoods are at risk. I think a little scuffle is a more than justified way of demonstrating how unwelcome that sentiment is. — Isaac

How do you regulate the scuffling mob?

Once you've framed the issue as one of preserving life and livelihood, where force in general is sanctioned, how will you stop the mob from going too far?

Can't they do both? — Isaac

Student's can't run the university because they don't know how. They're teenagers who lack knowledge and experience; most of their time needs to be dedicated to learning their course material and attending lectures, and the rest of it needs to be spent goofing off to diffuse stress. They're customers, not faculty/staff; they pay for a service, they didn't buy the business.

This really is a case of suggesting that the inmates should run the asylum. We don't let the most inexperienced among us make the most critical decisions for the rest of us, because people with no experience at a thing generally suck at that thing.

When it comes to billionaires giving money to political movements, parties and outright individual politicians, one naturally has to make the difference between propagation of political and economic ideology and what is simply lobbying for personal gain. For some like the Koch brothers to hold power in the GOP it's more about the latter. Yet typically things are promoted as ideological choices. — ssu

Except if you had actually read anything I recommended, you'd know that the Koch Brothers don't exclusively lobby or donate money to politicians and campaigns, but also set up and direct multiple think tanks and university departments to propagate libertarian ideology, as I've already stated multiple times now. Not going to further waste my time with a tried and true know-nothing like yourself who constantly pedals in vapid speculation.

The insults are unnecessary and you certainly can't expect a European to be as informed or even interested in the details of certain aspects of US politics. It also makes you sound unconvincing.

Look at you go!

Your arrogance and ideological tribal fervor is so over the top that it's hilarious, yet so telling. Where did I say that the Koch's exclusively donate to politicians and campaigns? Donating to think tanks etc. can be a way to effect party policy and this can be done, in the end, for personal gains. Yet with the so popular tradition, just give an answer to things that have nothing to do with what I actually say. How this conversation reminds me of the debates with the old venerable LandruGuideUs chap.

The total inability to see that populists (by the traditional definition of populism, actually) both on the left and the right don't really like billionaires funding politics is obvious. At least those that fund the other sides favorite issues. Oh but this is what? Toxic centrism? That would be a new one. Even to refer that both sides would engage in basically similar demagoguery (even in their alternate universes, of course) is heresy for you as obviously one side is justifiably right, errr the left that is, and the other side just resorts to absurd lies that have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

I'm saying that just because some students feel like they have the right to occupy Berkeley doesn't make it so. It's not fair to Berkeley and it's not fair to the opposition which would be censored. — VagabondSpectre

But now we're back to 'fairness' again. Why do you think it would not be 'fair'?

If you want to actually establish that the opposition is immoral, delivering an argument or a rebuke at the event in question would be your primary means to actually persuade them. — VagabondSpectre

One cannot argue morality, there are no moral facts, only opinions. Even if we could agree on some basic moral and argue the facts of how it is achieved, what evidence do you have to justify your belief that evidence-based persuasion is the best way to change someone's opinion?

I've just read this morning that Alabama have just banned abortion even for victims of rape and incest. How did the logical persuasion of liberals go there?

You're advocating for using the tactics of the racists and the fascists in order to get rid of them, and because of that you run the risk of merely replacing them. — VagabondSpectre

That's a ludicrous argument. If racists and fascists started debating their ideas in open forums would you then advise we switch to violent insurrection lest we become fascists by copying their tactics?

Tactics and the arguments they promote are two different things. As I said, I'm not an advocate of serious violence unless it is strictly necessary (responding to serious violence). I'm just not arbitrarily drawing a line at any physical force whatsoever. I'm still not seeing any argument for drawing the line there apart from this 'escalation' idea, but then I'm not seeing the mechanism by which violence breeds more violence, but spoken word is immune from such escalation.

If you want to censor Shapiro's ideas, then I'm worried that you would wind up censoring basically everything else that you don't agree with. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, that's the point. Within one's community, why would we not be allowed to proscribed certain speech acts? We proscribe all sorts of other behaviour, even very trivial stuff of virtually insignificant harm. What is it about speech that you're so opposed to circumscribing?

How do you regulate the scuffling mob?

Once you've framed the issue as one of preserving life and livelihood, where force in general is sanctioned, how will you stop the mob from going too far? — VagabondSpectre

The same way you regulate the non-scuffing mob. Why has the fact that it is scuffling suddenly rendered it difficult to regulate?

We don't let the most inexperienced among us make the most critical decisions for the rest of us — VagabondSpectre

Inexperienced at what? We're not talking about how to balance the cash flow, we're talking about desicions about who to allow to speak on campus. What level of experience is the CEO guaranteed to have here that helps them make the 'right' decision?

Hey Benkei, a very obvious solution for one who is uninformed on a subject is to read and learn more about it, as I have suggested to ssu multiple times, which he decidedly ignores. What's actually more insulting is to suggest otherwise.

Chinese censorship: go big or go home.

http://time.com/5589439/china-wikipedia-online-censorship/

I only hope in 2020 more humanities departments close down as universities are starved even more economically.....

I really want to see how long they can keep pretending that SJW fanatics are not a problem and people don't want to learn from or with such morons.

I wonder if they will pretend to the end.

Back to the actual topic, here is the culprit talking among other things about this incident and conservatism in general to another wretched right-winger:

Ok, first thing - Scruton's 'context' - the estate, the horses (there were horses, right?). My first thought is, if you lose that, 'good!' — csalisbury

I like to imagine Scruton having his ideas about sex and gender identity while watching carp in a stately pond. But yes, less carp, more empathy, more reality.

But I understand your broader point to be that internet discourse is a kind of flattening all around. Where everything is yanked from its context, and you reach a sort of critical mass of 'yanking' where the flat space of the internet doesn't reflect a given world anymore, but, instead, everything in the world is already measuring itself against how it would seem in the flat space. Gradually quotes aren't cited in a neutral medium; the medium itself dictates how people speak, all speakers now anticipating how their quotes will be reworked. — csalisbury

I think that's about right. At least, close to my perspective on it.

But do you think - My feeling is that a return to context *is* good, even if the Scruton context is abhorrent. Where the speaker draws from a local situation and works with it. I know that's a little luddite, because it means logging off - but I don't see how you can counteract the sheer dissolving momentum of internet discourse - for the reasons you mention - through anything short of dropping out of it. Any attempts to intervene in the medium itself will get sucked into it. — csalisbury

I guess it's about a different kind of contextualising. You can embed nuance in the Endless Stream of the Styx through tinyurl; so lectures, 'thinkpieces', books, good blog posts; can propagate. The problem there is that reason is unlikely to function as a bridge or a perturbation, as its distribution is partitioned into channels created by other means. The synoptic vision and measuredness that can come from good research and journalism is a synoptic vision for the marketing demographic that is most likely to click on it.

As much as people like to paint reason as a great connector - it's now less a universal transit system of the space of ideas and more like a bridge between near islands in the grand archipelago of internet discourse.

Edit: I guess the contrast is between 'dropping out' = cutting out your tongue and 'staying in' = speaking post-Babel in the Bible.

Edit2: Though there are some promising prospects for grass-roots viral marketing, like the case of the Scottish Independence referendum a few years ago.

Back to the actual topic, here is the culprit talking among other things about this incident and conservatism in general to another wretched right-winger — ssu

Why aren't they sitting on those nice looking mahogany chairs instead of those plastic things? Is it a fake backdrop or something?

Why do you think it would not be 'fair'? — Isaac

It's not "fair" because banning conservative views on campus would be gross political favoritism. Conservative students are paying customers, and as long as they're behaving peacefully, banning them would be unjust.

It's also not fair to Berkeley to use force to compel them to play political favoritism.

If alt-rioters shut down an event you that happened to be attending and support, I'm guessing you would object to their use of force against you and yours, right?

One cannot argue morality, there are no moral facts, only opinions. Even if we could agree on some basic moral and argue the facts of how it is achieved, what evidence do you have to justify your belief that evidence-based persuasion is the best way to change someone's opinion? — Isaac

Often times people hold particular political views because they believe that they represent the best way to achieve fundamentally important moral goals (like a secure, stable, and prosperous society).

As it turns out, conservatism and progressivism are often after the same ends, people just disagree about how best to achieve them (both sides are interested in "fairness" for example, but they disagree about the facts of the playing field).

So, with the right evidence, it is actually possible to show people that their views are not practical or are not likely to achieve the desired results.

We didn't get where we are today by randomly succumbing to our moral whims, we actually held debates as best we could, and were able to find mutually beneficial compromises.

I've just read this morning that Alabama have just banned abortion even for victims of rape and incest. How did the logical persuasion of liberals go there? — Isaac

What logical persuasion?

Merely condemning abortion without appealing to facts isn't evidence based persuasion, it's based on an emotional appeal. Alabamians are well insulated from reasonable pro-choice speakers, so it's unlikely that many of them have ever seriously considered the issue. The problem is that many of them have pre-decided, on emotional grounds, that they're correct, and that listening to the opposition is nothing but harmful; and because they're surrounded only by people who reinforce that view, how can they get away from it?

When the left comes in and calls them monsters as a rebuke, they're only strengthening their resolve.

This is the politics of feelings over facts, and it stinks...

That's a ludicrous argument. If racists and fascists started debating their ideas in open forums would you then advise we switch to violent insurrection lest we become fascists by copying their tactics? — Isaac

I think your analogy is a bit lopsided. Racists and fascists are debating their ideas in open forums, and you're advising violent insurrection to be used against them. I'm not saying copying the fascists and racists is necessarily bad, I'm saying that violent insurrection is bad. Racists and Fascists have historically used violent insurrection to achieve their ends. I'm trying to draw an ironic ideological connection between your advocacy of the use of force as political speech with the self-same directive of the original fascists (see: brownshirts & blackshirts).

As I said, I'm not an advocate of serious violence unless it is strictly necessary (responding to serious violence). — Isaac

Tell me again why barricading the doors of Shapiro's events is necessary force?

You said because the lives of marginalized folk are on the line. You might interpret that as only condoning barricades, but why can't someone else say that it condones the use of artillery?

If lives are on the line when Shapiro speaks, can't your argument also justify his assassination?

Yes, that's the point. Within one's community, why would we not be allowed to proscribed certain speech acts? We proscribe all sorts of other behaviour, even very trivial stuff of virtually insignificant harm. What is it about speech that you're so opposed to circumscribing? — Isaac

Because lots of people disagree, so what you're asking for leads inexorably to conflict and political segregation.

The whole point of democracy is to work through our disagreements about what policies and moral aims we should enshrine into culture and law. We don't police the thoughts of other citizens because we've collectively decided to protect the right of individuals to think and speak freely, so that through a marketplace of our ideas, we may identify the best and most appealing principles by which to govern.

The same way you regulate the non-scuffing mob. Why has the fact that it is scuffling suddenly rendered it difficult to regulate? — Isaac

How can you even ask this?

Are you really wondering what could make a scuffling mob harder to control than an organized crowd (i.e: not a mob)?

Here's how: emotionally riled up individuals within the scuffling mob take aggressive action, which engenders an aggressive response from opposing individuals, and then when the rest of the mob sees this, they tend to escalate their degree of scuffling.

Inexperienced at what? — Isaac

Exactly. They don't even yet know what they don't yet know, and if they skip their business classes then they may never know.

We're not talking about how to balance the cash flow, we're talking about desicions about who to allow to speak on campus. What level of experience is the CEO guaranteed to have here that helps them make the 'right' decision? — Isaac

If you think it would stop at deciding who gets to speak on campus, then you're kidding yourself beyond measure, but let's assume that's all they're after:

An edict is issued banning any and every conservative speaker, which causes the conservative student union to start protesting, and to lose faith in the institution's ability to impartially educate them.

Next year enrollment figures are way down as a result, and the university needs to think about what it's going to cut, or sell, or who it will layoff to balance the budget. Because "progressive" students are the ones using forceful extortion, they might have no choice but to down-size and start openly pandering to assuage the students' ire.

And what would all this do to the academic integrity of the institution in the long run? How could Berkeley field a political science major and at the same time shield them all from even entertaining mainstream conservative political beliefs? It's farcical.

And there's an irony afoot. The "Antifa" movement of today mirrors some of the tactics and attitudes of the original fascists. Purging our communities of undesirables might not turn out like you'd hoped...' — VagabondSpectre

You have some stupid antifa. Then you have the ones, the majority, that counter protest violent nationalists. They are called antifa because they try to impede far right movements. I'll be more sympathetic to this comparison when you can give me news articles of antifa killing people. or acting to seriously harm people, for their political beliefs and not out of self defence.

Even violence at protests; most of which is done by antifa in self defense; all political ideologies have violence somewhere - faultlines of power are semipermeable membranes for our conduct -, the presumption that antifa violence is just as unjust and indifferent to life as memeing your car into a group of left protestors, killing an island conference of schoolchildren, or beating the shit out of unarmed black teenagers is quite reductive.

Where's the nuanced treatment of the antifa? Why is the presumption there that the antifa are aggressive in the same way as the people they counterprotest? Surely there should be more nuance here.

Edit: also, left liberals attempting to deplatform on college campuses are generally not antifa - antifa are usually anarchist, anticapitalist leftist, rather than capitalist-humanists that lean left.

You have some stupid antifa. Then you have the ones that counter protest white nationalists. I'll be more sympathetic to this comparison when you can give me news articles of antifa killing people. or acting to kill people, for their political beliefs. — fdrake

I'm reluctant to go into specifics because I'm not looking to tit-for-tat justify violent actions from either side, I'm saying that embracing violence in arenas which are meant to be democratic is antithetical to democracy. I'm rebuking left wing actions here in this thread (given its context, and especially given they're the democratic party), but it doesn't mean I don't rebuke the other side (my main point has become that rebuking the other side on moral, ideological, and factual levels in spite of its violence is the only apparent solution, where meeting force with force just compounds the root cause of the problem).

Even violence at protests; most of which is done by antifa in self defense; all political ideologies have violence somewhere - faultlines of power are semipermeable membranes for our conduct -, the presumption that antifa violence is just as unjust and indifferent to life as memeing your car into a group of left protestors, killing an island conference of schoolchildren, or beating the shit out of unarmed black teenagers is quite reductive.

Wheres the nuanced treatment of the antifa? Why is the presumption there that the antifa are aggressive in the same way as the people they counterprotest? Surely there should be more nuance here. — fdrake

Shapiro is a lot of irritating things, but I don't believe him to be white nationalist, and he doesn't condone violence so far as I know. Nuance for Scruton (and by tangential extension, Shapiro) is my objective here.

The fast and loose way in which we associate Shapiro with these heinous acts provides great emotional fodder to motivate a basic protest even though it might not be accurate, but it also causes some individuals to become emotionally enraged and to resort to violence. The idiotic minority of antifa who go overboard and undermine the movement are magnified by the opposition and used to paint a caricature, which then becomes the fast and loose rhetoric that motivates and radicalizes individuals on the other side.

It's almost never productive to protest for emotional reasons alone, because without a coherent ask it's just a rowdy waste of time. If the people who are protesting Shapiro are asking him to go away, then they're also asking the conservative students who invited him to go away, which is an unreasonable request if Berkley wishes to show some semblance of political impartiality

Fascism is not an idea to be debated. It is a set of actions to fight. Given this, antifa is useful and effective. Fascism will not be defeated through civil debate.

Love how having money somehow puts one beyond the sphere of politics. B-b-but they paid for it! This means they have rights!

Pathetic.

Short of declaring Spencer an enemy of the state, how to we defeat fascism, and does protesting Shapiro contribute to that fight?

I'm willing to accept (culture) war in principle, but I think you might be escalating things rather quickly, especially you think if Shapiro's followers are beyond persuasion.

Love how having money somehow puts one beyond the sphere of politics. B-b-but they paid for it! This means they have rights!

Pathetic. — StreetlightX

I don't get what you mean, who is suggesting money buys civil rights?

Or are you just broadly equating the political sphere with force?

Or are you just broadly equating the political sphere with force? — VagabondSpectre

I'm not 'equating' the political sphere with anything. What counts, and does not count, as political, is the political act par excellence and the liberal con is to imagine that one can set out, in advance, what ought to, and ought not, count as political. The neutralization and sterilization of politics passed off as sensible political theory. Trash.