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
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
Can't our society be even a teensy bit merit based? — VagabondSpectre
But which came first, the famous chicken or the famous egg? — VagabondSpectre
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
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
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
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
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
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
This is how they would respond — VagabondSpectre
they would not have given him the attention that has propelled him to his current level of fame, — VagabondSpectre
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
Do the students own Berkeley? — VagabondSpectre
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
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
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
As I said before, I urge you to seek reform before revolution, if only because we might not survive the latter. — 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)? — Isaac
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
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 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
I thought you said it was his hard work and popularity? — Isaac
Do the students own Berkeley? — VagabondSpectre
...yes. — Isaac
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
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
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
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
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
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
You are saying that in order to be popular, first, you need to be popular, which makes no sense. — VagabondSpectre
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
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
Actually, The Berkeley Group Holdings plc owns UoBerkeley. The students are just paying customers (the conservative and the liberal students alike). — VagabondSpectre
When police arrest thieves and return the stolen property to the victim... — VagabondSpectre
Let the inmates run the asylum? — VagabondSpectre
So I take it you're a supporter of the second amendment (gun rights)? — 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? — Isaac
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
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
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
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
They're not inmates. They're students and workers. And yes, let them run the companies — Isaac
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
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
My claim is more specific than the one you've addressed — VagabondSpectre
my criticism is that your own position is both controversial and popular, and is already highly platformed in new media. — VagabondSpectre
Whether the original intention of a law is to preserve order or not, they tend to only stick around if they do. — VagabondSpectre
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'm willing to bet that, statistically, owning a gun decreases one's life expectancy... — 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. — Isaac
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
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
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
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
As far as I can gather, you're a socialist leaning anti-fascist. — VagabondSpectre
Purging our communities of undesirables might not turn out like you'd hoped...' — VagabondSpectre
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
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
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
Students attend university to learn, not to occupy or control it. — VagabondSpectre
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 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
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
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
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
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
Can't they do both? — Isaac
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
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
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
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
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
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
We don't let the most inexperienced among us make the most critical decisions for the rest of us — VagabondSpectre
Ok, first thing - Scruton's 'context' - the estate, the horses (there were horses, right?). My first thought is, if you lose that, 'good!' — csalisbury
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
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
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 do you think it would not be 'fair'? — Isaac
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
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
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
As I said, I'm not an advocate of serious violence unless it is strictly necessary (responding to serious violence). — Isaac
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
The same way you regulate the non-scuffing mob. Why has the fact that it is scuffling suddenly rendered it difficult to regulate? — Isaac
Inexperienced at what? — Isaac
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
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 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
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
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
Or are you just broadly equating the political sphere with force? — VagabondSpectre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.