I notice it isn’t “your” cause. Does that mean you’re a fascist?
6 Likes
Not saying YOU are a conspiracy theorist, nor anyone who wonders out loud about this. But that it is a favorite tool of conspiracy theorists, and I guess I would just caution letting one’s imagination wonder too far with out evidence.
I don’t think it is that weird. The event was planned, and I assume the protest was planned. All you would need is for one anarchist to hear about it and then spread it out on a network I am sure they used and boom, you get a fringe faction latching on.
As for not getting arrest, I don’t see that as too unusual. First off, remember this was on a Campus, so I am assuming it is campus cops in charge, not regular police (as per the Tweet). Perhaps their goal was to contain and disperse and forgo busting heads of people who pay their salaries through their tuition. Or perhaps that was the order of the people in charge of the school. PR and limiting the damage was more important than “justice”, perhaps?
Or if one wanted to get all “wondering” on the topic, the liberals in charge of Berkeley wanted the damage to take place in order to make a statement, and let the perpetrators go because they support them. And while we are wondering, let’s assume the kids in black breaking things WERE Alt-Right plants. Then that would also mean that the CAMPUS COPS were in on it?? Otherwise, why would they let them go?
So yeah, I guess I am just urging not to get too carried away. 
2 Likes
This is an important distinction and needs to be remembered when the left fractures over things like this. I’m not saying I’m an expert in the effectiveness of different tactics; you do you as far as protesting goes. I’m just saying there’s ample support for the idea that this was exactly what they wanted. Just protest with the knowledge that they’ll use anything they can against you.
3 Likes
I already made suggestions in my very first comment in the thread. Don’t suppose you bothered to read it?
@dbar also had a good idea:
People on the left have to get a reputation for not tolerating violence from their ostensible allies. This means not providing cover to violent protesters, actively shunning violent protesters, and even calling the authorities on violent protesters. Making it clear to the press that we don’t agree with violent protest. Yes, this isn’t necessarily easy, but the more you make excuses for it, the more responsibility for it you accept in the eyes of everyone who isn’t already on your side – and those are exactly the people you need to convince to be on your side.
3 Likes
WHO CARES? I’m tired of this geeky 3D chess game everyone thinks they’re getting dragged into by Breitbart. Milo SHOWING UP causes actual harm. When students have to turn to rioting as a last resort to stop him from showing up, it causes harm.
Him talking at universities is not a trap, it’s PART of the campaign of violence the far right is engaged with. If we all stopped trying to play PR agents for ‘the left’, which, by the way, won’t get good PR no matter what, some real change might happen–as it did in this case, where a platform for Milo to abuse undocumented migrants and trans students was denied to him because of these actions.
8 Likes
True. Didn’t think it through. Although wouldn’t it be a speaker’s fee regardless of attendance? This tour of his seems obviously designed to bait these types of protests, as opposed to only be about making money. It all seems to be a concerted effort to cast protests–and by extension the left–as “radical” and “violent” even when they hardly ever are. I feel like it would be most effective to avoid playing into this narrative somehow, and better yet show it for what it is.
Being bluntly honest, no, I didn’t, because I’ve learned that you and I have very different perspectives on how to deal with fascists, and, due to us having very different logical precepts for our arguments, we’ve always ended up talking past each other in the past, so I’ve honestly been skimming past your posts in this thread and been responding to other people. For that, I apologize.
3 Likes
Nope. There is always a seat available for him. He is a major contributor to the school.
3 Likes
It is never wrong to punch a Nazi in the face. Full stop.
3 Likes
Except, we have laws capable of dealing with those that commit the violence. Silencing speech for fear of those listening to the speech may become violent is pre-crime. Besides, who chooses what speech is allowed and what speech is not? The Senators, Congressmen and President? I think history has been very clear that the speech that “leaders” choose to inhibit through “laws” is the speech that does not benefit the “leaders”. This is a prime example of be careful of what you wish for as you might just get it.
1 Like
We have two questions here, with some subquestions:
- Is it morally right to punch a Nazi in the face?
1a) What does we mean by “moral”? Which moral theory are we using? - Is it tactically sound to punch a Nazi in the face?
2a) What are we trying to accomplish by punching the Nazi in the face?
2b) How does punching a Nazi in the face advance our concrete goals?
2c) Does punching the Nazi in the face create other problems that ultimately prevent us from meeting our goals?
I’m trying to avoid (1) and (1a) because that’s pretty much hopeless. Everyone has their own unique, idiosyncratic moral frameworks, and pretty much everyone ignores those frameworks in practice and does whatever the hell they want to do, and then finds some lame rationalization after the fact (see: this thread).
If you must know, though, I do think it’s morally wrong to initiate violence in almost any situation. I’m sure we can contrive some bizarre scenario where it would be justified to initiate violence, but as a general rule of thumb, “don’t be violent” is a more moral sentiment than “be violent”. In fact, I think this is the only sensible left wing position on violence. Are you against capital punishment? Why? Probably a bunch of the same arguments apply. What if you only think the person is a Nazi and it’s a case of mistaken identity?
I’m arguing that the answer to (2) is false. It is wrong to punch a Nazi in the face because none of my (long-term political) goals are advanced by punching a Nazi in the face, and doing so would be a crime which makes me a criminal, which makes me less credible and less effective in the political arena in the long term.
4 Likes
I agree. Mass ignoring is the most powerful weapon.
- Is it morally right to not punch a Nazi in the face?
1a) What does we mean by “moral”? Which moral theory are we using? - Is it tactically sound to not punch a Nazi in the face?
2a) What are we trying to accomplish by not punching the Nazi in the face?
2b) How does not punching a Nazi in the face advance our concrete goals?
2c) Does not punching the Nazi in the face create other problems that ultimately prevent us from meeting our goals?
3 Likes
First of all, why do you keep calling me names?
Second of all, why do you keep assuming I’m right wing when I’ve told you explicitly that I’m not and have not argued for any right wing positions?
Third of all, why are you claiming I’m wrong that the left is more violent than the right in the 21st century if it’s “unverifiable”? “Unverifiable” means we can’t know if I’m right or wrong, not that I’m obviously wrong.
Fourth, I’m very much not suggesting we roll over and die. Just the opposite! I’m suggesting we get guns, learn how to use them, and learn how to fight hand-to-hand for good measure. And get smart about resistance instead of whatever it is we’re doing now.
I’m not a “forum spy”. I’ve been posting here for years and I’ve been consistently left wing and social justice-oriented.
Why are you so hostile? can you please highlight the specific quotes I’ve made that you object to? I feel that given your attempts to provoke me, I’ve been pretty patient with you. I’m happy to hear you out and consider your ideas, but I really wish you’d extend me the same courtesy.
3 Likes
Are you going ad hominem or trying to build a strawman? Which one?
The answer is to your question is no.
Wait a minute, aren’t you the same jackass concerned citizen who just spent the last 24 hours passionately arguing in post after post that we shouldn’t engage in peaceful demonstrations for fear that some protesters may become violent?
17 Likes
You and I aren’t “we.”
I grew up with survivors of death camps. My father in law was a Jew and a WWII vet. You don’t appease fascists and Nazis. You confront and fight them without quarter.
16 Likes
I dunno. Have you you quit punching your wife yet?
I reject your false choices.
I’m actually asking you if you’re a fascist since being against fascists is not “your” cause.
8 Likes
