[NEWS] Violent UC Berkeley riots force cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event

[Badspot]

people protest and use civil disobedience at your events because they don't want to hear what you have to say

You can protest.  You have the right to say whatever you like in response.  You don't have the right to beat people up, smash windows and start fires to prevent other people from speaking. 

[Ad Bot]

[PhantOS]

everybody knows that the best way to deal with people having a different opinion is to be violent towards them

maturity at its finest

[SeventhSandwich]

You can protest.  You have the right to say whatever you like in response.  You don't have the right to beat people up, smash windows and start fires to prevent other people from speaking. 

I don't think anyone disputes that though. Even in the most radical left-wing circles, you aren't going to find many people who want to actually legalize violent civil disobedience.

From a liberal perspective, the problem with the conservative mantra against violent protest is that they're usually exaggerating and over-generalizing the protestors as violent, and they're using it as a tool to make the issues illegitimate. Their mentality is basically, "A small percentage of BLM/Hillary supporters/whatever broke a window and flipped a cop car, so the stuff they're protesting about doesn't matter."

The way I see it is that violent protest is inherently symptomatic of problems in society, and it doesn't actually go away unless you fix the problem. It still means we have to arrest the protestors and disperse the crowds, but the long-term solution is to actually take a second look at the issues they're protesting about.

[Tactical Nuke]

everybody knows that the best way to deal with people having a different opinion is to be violent towards them

maturity at its finest

even better than that is when you destroy your own campus because "wahhhhhh he's a meanie-bo-beenie!!!!1!!111!!1111!!1!!"

I don't think anyone disputes that though. Even in the most radical left-wing circles, you aren't going to find many people who want to actually legalize violent civil disobedience.

From a liberal perspective, the problem with the conservative mantra against violent protest is that they're usually exaggerating and over-generalizing the protestors as violent, and they're using it as a tool to make the issues illegitimate. Their mentality is basically, "A small percentage of BLM/Hillary supporters/whatever broke a window and flipped a cop car, so the stuff they're protesting about doesn't matter."

The way I see it is that violent protest is inherently symptomatic of problems in society, and it doesn't actually go away unless you fix the problem. It still means we have to arrest the protestors and disperse the crowds, but the long-term solution is to actually take a second look at the issues they're protesting about.

that's not progress then
that's chickening out and just giving them what they want because you want them to stop destroying stuff
it's literally Godfather-like capitulation

if some guy you've never met before came into your house, smashed all your dishes, peed all over your walls and bed and keyed your car with a blow torch, all the while demanding to be treated fairly, would you reasonably wish to treat him fairly? yeah, probably not ever

it seems people have just up and forgot that progress can be achieved through non-violent means
MLK's civil rights movement
Gandhi's movement against colonialism
the list goes on

meanwhile, the more significant revolutions (excepting the American Revolution) that were fought through violence and enforced through violence have pretty much collapsed underneath their own paranoia and destruction
French Revolution
Russian (Communist) Revolution
yada yada

[PhantOS]

I think that in this time and place, violent protest isn't necessary. Under a totalitarian government that executes peaceful protesters, violent protest would definitely be justified. I would justify violent protests in the 1800s if it was against slavery because peaceful protest would just get you lynched, but here peaceful protest is perfectly legal and people should explore that option before turning to violence.

Destroying other people's stuff just because they express a different opinion is petty. Destroying other people's stuff because you want to make a point, get noticed or make a change where peaceful protest wouldn't work is completely justified.

[Badspot]

I don't think anyone disputes that though. Even in the most radical left-wing circles, you aren't going to find many people who want to actually legalize violent civil disobedience.

Did you miss LeisureSuit912's posts?  Or #punchanational socialist?

From a liberal perspective, the problem with the conservative mantra against violent protest is that they're usually exaggerating and over-generalizing the protestors as violent, and they're using it as a tool to make the issues illegitimate. Their mentality is basically, "A small percentage of BLM/Hillary supporters/whatever broke a window and flipped a cop car, so the stuff they're protesting about doesn't matter."

The issue is that a few hundred anarchists riot but the entire left side of the aisle cheers.  Celebrities and the media openly speak out against democratic elections and free speech itself.  No one even seems to be able to articulate what they're protesting, it's just "REEEE GET OUT national socialist".

I would justify violent protests in the 1800s if it was against slavery

We had that, it was called the American Civil War.  No need to thank me for it.

[PhantOS]

The issue is that a few hundred anarchists riot but the entire left side of the aisle cheers.  Celebrities and the media openly speak out against democratic elections and free speech itself.  No one even seems to be able to articulate what they're protesting, it's just "REEEE GET OUT national socialist".

Speaking out against democratic elections is protected under our democracy. Encouraging violent protests is ethically wrong and considered provocation, but it's still considered freedom of speech. As far as accountability goes, however, people who encourage something to happen should be just as responsible as those who commit the action. This applies to both sides, left or right, black or white, male or female. If you openly encourage someone to assassinate the president, you aren't committing any crimes but you're enabling it to happen, and when it does happen, you're partially responsible.

I guess I'm trying to say that it must be legal to speak out against your government, but illegal to act against your government.

[Ipquarx]

Did you miss LeisureSuit912's posts?  Or #punchanational socialist?

I'm gonna ask this just because I'm curious.

How do you feel about that time when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel after being repeatedly harassed by him?

[Corderlain]

I'm gonna ask this just because I'm curious.

How do you feel about that time when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel after being repeatedly harassed by him?

Chiming in, direct provocation between two people is a wholly different matter from a riot. Also, I'd wager badspot is for "fighting wprds" which is what I would classify calling Buzz a coward and a liar is.

[Ipquarx]

Chiming in, direct provocation between two people is a wholly different matter from a riot.

Yes I'm aware, that's why I quoted the #punchanational socialist part.

[SeventhSandwich]

Did you miss LeisureSuit912's posts?  Or #punchanational socialist?

I didn't, but the prevailing attitude among my liberal circle of friends is that the national socialist getting punched was funny but at the same time socially inexcusable. There's a couple of people that I know who think that punching national socialists is a valid method of 'self-defense' for social justice movements. They are idiots, and it's a bad idea to popularize the idea that punching people over non-violent disputes is an appropriate mode of social change.

The way I see it is that finding humor in the misfortune of bad people is already basic human nature. Obviously we've got to arrest the guy that punched him, but I don't feel guilty for finding it amusing on a strictly personal level.

The issue is that a few hundred anarchists riot but the entire left side of the aisle cheers.  Celebrities and the media openly speak out against democratic elections and free speech itself.  No one even seems to be able to articulate what they're protesting, it's just "REEEE GET OUT national socialist".

I don't think that the entire left is 'cheering' for riots. It's just a discrepancy in what different people value most in society. Liberals are more likely to value equality and social progress over short-term social order. It would be nice if we could have our cake and eat it too - protest social injustices without violence and other unfortunate bullstuff - but that stuff is pretty much always going to happen. Ignoring real problems and delaying social progress because of a small handful of rioters is far more damaging to society than broken windows and torched cop cars. This is a fact proven by history.

[Corderlain]

Yes I'm aware, that's why I quoted the #punchanational socialist part.

Sorry ninja'd. I think that falls under fighting words. Punchanational socialist is basically the knockout challenge where the Buzz punch was a direct harrassment and confrentation.

[Zloff]

Destroying other people's stuff just because they express a different opinion is petty. Destroying other people's stuff because you want to make a point, get noticed or make a change where peaceful protest wouldn't work is completely justified.

are you telling me that you think some "protesting" morons deciding to stomp around on top of my car or smash my office's windows - the destruction of private property without consent - would be justified because their highway blocking didn't make a clear enough point?

[SeventhSandwich]

Destroying other people's stuff because you want to make a point, get noticed or make a change where peaceful protest wouldn't work is completely justified.

I disagree with this on a factual basis. Sociologists have looked at the success of social movements, and the ones that pursue their means non-violently are always more effective on average.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/?utm_term=.0b52f843b459

that's not progress then
that's chickening out and just giving them what they want because you want them to stop destroying stuff

People capitulate because a large portion of society wants change. The occasional riots are just a side-effect, and usually they aren't the reason why society does change. For instance, there were violent riots during the American Revolution, during the Civil Rights Movement, and during the Vietnam era. Are riots the reason why society changed on those issues?

[Bisjac]

im still not sure what they were actually protesting. from the signs they had and the chants they used, it was 100% pro fascist rioting lol.
if they are so tough why dont they just start the war they claimed they want. their side have been unprepared for it for 100s of years and this is how they start?