Is there anyone knowledgeable who would be willing to summarize, in layman’s terms, the communications breakdown in this argument? I completely sympathize if nobody wants to read this mess, I would just really like to understand what is going on here.

The OP was a sarcastic comment in regard to the occupation of the US Capitol by protestors concerned with alleged election fraud. The dialog in question is between two commentors (A and B), who have some philosophical disagreement or misunderstanding.


OP: yeah, im sure this wouldve happened if Hillary was in office and lost this election. Totally no difference in the two.

A: Who ever said there was no difference between the two and how big of a deal is a few thousand angry people damaging property? The photos of people storming the capitol building seem pretty inspiring and raise the question: why is the left is so cowed and weak that it can't even fathom occupying a political building?

C: [Image text says 84% of cops voted for trump / Cops are taking selfies with the terrorists.] because the left gets a significantly more hostile reaction

A: So? I'm not sure how you think that fact (which might not even be a fact, as a woman was shot dead in the events) has any bearing on my point: that signs of unrest should not so easily be dismissed and that shouting 'treason' for civil disobedience and occupying a state building is laughably inconsistent

B: The purpose of occupying said state building was to steal a democratic election so a narcissist who panders to fascists could retain his position as the most powerful politician on the planet. Some of them were wearing “Civil War” shirts, like that’s something we should look forward to. An idiotically failed coup attempt is still a coup attempt, is it not?

A: And, in general, if people believe an election was stolen, you don't believe they should rise up and carry out actions which are normally illegal?

As for the idea that it was a coup: coups look nothing like a few hundred people storming a few buildings, they tend to involve large groups of those in power choosing sides behind the scenes. Is it a petit coup to shut down highways and use illegal, extrapolitical means to bring about political objectives for desired civil rights outcomes that are not possible through electoral avenues? I certainly don't think so

B: There is no “in general,” we are talking about a specific situation.
If people believe an election is stolen based solely on unsubstantiated propaganda they’ve been fed by authoritarians in power, said authoritarians encourage these people to take illegal action for the purposes of overturning the election results in their favor, and the people then occupy a state building for the explicit purpose of disrupting the confirmation of election results, then no they are not remotely in the right.

Coups don’t usually look like this because these people don’t know what the fuck they’re doing and had no military support. Their aims were completely attainable through electoral avenues; they have just refused to accept the results because their candidate lost. What do you think is good about this scenario?

You can’t just believe something and try to force it on society, you actually have to be right and convince people with valid arguments.
Revolutions are way more likely to end in pointless bloodbath than in any intended outcome. You don’t just attempt that shit for no reason. “I believe QAnon” counts as “no reason.”

A: "There is no “in general,” we are talking about a specific situation."
I have no clue what this even means. Of course there is 'in general'. That's what principles are. That's how specific situations can even so much as be judged (i.e. insofar as they participate in attributions which are *necessarily* general).

Your argument seems to be that you aren't justified for acting solely because you believe an evil needs to be addressed. On your formulation, you need to also know that you know (and know that you know that you know) that you are correct in your assessment of the situation. No one even approximates the epistemic conditions you demand, so you're pretty clearly wrong (or else there's no such thing as justifiable political action outside of the boundaries prescribed by whoever happens to have power)

"What do you think is good about this scenario?"
People attempting to find their voice and to express their unrest is good - even if it isn't perfectly articulate (because it never is and it never has been historically)

"You can’t just believe something and try to force it on society, you actually have to be right and convince people with valid arguments."
Of course you can. That's literally what a government is.

"Revolutions are way more likely to end in pointless bloodbath than in any intended outcome. You don’t just attempt that shit for no reason."
Just because the reasons aren't articulate doesn't mean they don't exist. As for the idea that they're 'pointless bloodbaths', I don't really think history suggests your claim is right.

"There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves"

B: Reality, life, society, the human condition, etc. are too complex to encapsulated solely by ideology, which reflects the human brain’s pattern-seeking tendencies more that it reflects reality itself. One can’t simply make a vague, broad statement about what is good in general and use it to excuse any action one decides to take when the context of said action is far more complex than the conditions stated in the original generalization. Apples are good to eat in general, here have this one - it’s poisoned!

I am absolutely arguing that you aren’t justified for acting SOLELY because you believe that there is an evil that needs to be addressed. There is nothing sacred about belief. Anyone can believe anything, and they do. I can believe corn is evil and that it needs to be addressed, this does not justify me burning down every farm in sight; it just makes me an idiot who destroyed some farms.
I am not arguing that you need to know you know you know or whatever you said. That would be absurd. But perhaps one’s belief ought to be based on SOMETHING other than whim?

Doing the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reason isn’t self-justifying just because “oh look, they’re trying to articulate themselves (poorly).” Vague ideals be damned - real actions have real consequences that affect real humans who really exist in reality.

Yes, we live in a society. We are born into systems we didn’t choose for ourselves. This neither justifies those systems, nor does it justify any and all revolt against such systems. The systems need to justify themselves in some other way, and if they can’t then perhaps the situation calls for a revolt that also must justify itself (else you can just replace a bad system with a worse one, and kill a bunch of people in the process).

There are plenty of failed or subverted revolutions in the history of humanity. Why do you think there are only two?

A: "Reality, life, society, the human condition, etc. are too complex to encapsulated solely by ideology, which reflects the human brain’s pattern-seeking tendencies more that it reflects reality itself. One can’t simply make a vague, broad statement about what is good in general and use it to excuse any action one decides to take when the context of said action is far more complex than the conditions stated in the original generalization. Apples are good to eat in general, here have this one - it’s poisoned!"
Amazed that you don't see that this is not an internally coherent argument. You are making broad sweeping claims about *all* of reality and about our general capacities for navigating said reality to argue that we can't trust the very capacity you'd need to mount such an argument.

"I am absolutely arguing that you aren’t justified for acting SOLELY because you believe that there is an evil that needs to be addressed. There is nothing sacred about belief. Anyone can believe anything, and they do. I can believe corn is evil and that it needs to be addressed, this does not justify me burning down every farm in sight; it just makes me an idiot who destroyed some farms."
Of course it justifies your acting that way even if your belief doesn't make that action a good action. You're conflating epistemic and ethical justification.

"I am not arguing that you need to know you know you know or whatever you said. That would be absurd. But perhaps one’s belief ought to be based on SOMETHING other than whim?"
Their beliefs are based on a great deal more than whim - as are everyone's.

"There are plenty of failed or subverted revolutions in the history of humanity. Why do you think there are only two?"
No one said there were only two. That's a mark twain quote about the french revolution. His point is that your perspective on 'bloodbaths' is historically myopic

B: I’d love to respond to that, but this time I can’t see that you actually said anything at all. Except that I’d be justified in burning down farms because I don’t like corn, which... great take, man.

A: You would of course be justified in trying to burn down farms if you genuinely believed that corn was evil and that burning farms down was the best path to stopping said evil (and that you could stop more evil that way than you would cause by halting food production etc etc). That's not a take, that's just a relatively innocuous and obvious point about the meanings of 'belief' and 'justification' (for action)
Intension and extension are tough concepts for some people so your failure to distinguish is certainly forgivable.

B: How do you arrive at the notion that any action is justified simply because it follows logically from a sincere belief, regardless of whether that belief reflects reality? Good logic applied to bad data still yields bad conclusions.

A: You're conflating what ultimately happens to be true (which no one has direct access to, extension) with people's best attempts to make sense of their reality such as they encounter it (their beliefs, intension). You're justified in taking actions to break into the basement of a pizza place if you think you can stop child trafficking - you might well be 100% wrong and completely full of shit but that's a separate question from whether or not you're justified in acting given said beliefs. If that's uncomfortable, remember: "reality, life, society, the human condition, etc. are too complex to encapsulated solely by... the human brain’s pattern-seeking tendencies"

B: I don’t give a shit what people believe, nor do I think belief necessarily reflects one’s “best attempts to make sense of ... reality.” If you think there’s a trafficking ring in the basement of a pizza place, you might better try and verify that before you just decide to break in. Because when you’re inside and discover the restaurant doesn’t even have a basement, you and the restauranteur and the cops who showed up are all about to be in a serious situation that could’ve been easily avoided if you spent 15 minutes thinking about the potential consequences of your actions. The truth doesn’t just “ultimately happen to be true,” it is true whether you ever know it or not. This isn’t unrelated to whether you are justified in acting. Your notion of any belief justifying any action no matter how incorrect seems beyond absurd, and you refuse to it explain it so I get the impression you’re just trying to make me sound stupid without actually making a point.

A: Yeah, whenever someone believes something is true they should always step outside their mind and evaluate it from that position before incorporating it into their belief-desire-action triad. Excellent point. I look forward to your future work on practical philosophy. Best of luck out there

B: Congratulations, you were sarcastic and condescending to a stranger on the internet while refusing to explain your own positions.

A: I explained my positions (more than once, control+f "conflating" or "intension"/"extension") and you failed to grasp the explanation. At some point I've got no option but to have a little fun with it

B: Telling me I’m conflating things I’m not conflating is not explaining your own position that any belief justifies any action. Nor does dropping a bunch of jargon on somebody with no degree and being a jerk about it make you correct. I’m glad you were able to amuse yourself at the expense of someone you consider inferior.

A: Your position demands stepping outside of your own mind to evaluate your beliefs from some other perspective. No such perspective exists. Beliefs are the only things we have to justify our actions, whether they ultimately happen to be right or not. It is tragic, perhaps, that reality and belief can be so far apart but that's not really much of an argument for adopting a position which demands the impossible

B: My position demands no such thing.
So you don’t think any kind of vetting of information should occur before one takes extreme measures?
do you think reflecting on your own beliefs/assumptions and why you believe them is a good idea?

A: Of course reflecting on your beliefs is a good idea. And everyone does that. These people have vetted their beliefs but they vet those beliefs with things you wouldn't vet them with. That's because they can't vet with any standards other than their own. We're stuck in our heads and whatever it is we come to believe for whatever reasons we happen to believe them are all we have for choosing our actions.

B: Ok ok ok, I actually agree with almost all of that, which is a first in this conversation. I’m not sure EVERYONE is particularly reflective on their own beliefs (none of us are AT ALL TIMES) because we have a remarkable capacity to ignore arguments that are contrary to our biases even when they are supported by data. And people who KNOW they should check sources on news articles, don’t do it (yes, there are reasons people aren’t consistent at this, but still many don’t do it all and won’t see contrary evidence when it is placed in front of their face). We are absolutely stuck in our heads though, and at best we are working with what we assume to be true.

However taking extreme measures still require a little extra work. There’s probably a way to find out if that basement exists without breaking into the restaurant.

Bad Faith is also a thing

I still don’t see how attempting to overturn democracy is justified just because SOME of the people responsible sincerely believed it to be correct.