<keyonte0> Apparently there's a pretty big anarchist group in the area that regularly does shit like that.
09:29 F<Fulvus> That's pretty clear, a reasonable person can't apply ALL of this to college students: https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1486023291170.png
09:31 VernZzZ → •VereorNox
09:32 F<Fulvus> But there are college students from Berkeley who most assuredly were part of that "protest", and the reason why they were is because there's definately a deep current of dogmaticism flowing through those circles that can't abide by free speech.
09:32 E<•Elara> there are also people who think free speech is fine, but also think that Milo is a shit
09:33 → Zeikos joined (uid146927@brockwell.irccloud.com)
09:35 F<Fulvus> We're getting to the point where violence is condoned by that idealistic group, maybe to different degrees, but always violence in one form or another. I don't mean to be confrotnational when I say this, but even you're onboard with mob rule shutting down counterprotests, Elara. Didn't come across as THAT bad, but something I find indicative of a larger, more oppressive trend.
09:37 E<•Elara> I think that protests do not have the right to use violence, but that if coppers aren't there to keep counterprotests from disrupting protests, the protests have some right to keep themselves from being disrupted...and in the real world, that is occasionally, regrettably, going to lead to some violent incidents
09:37 it's not ideal, but it's better than a supine "oh, the message we're sending is being disrupted, oh well, never mind"
09:39 F<Fulvus> What you mean by "protestors have the right to keep themselves from being disrupted" is that protestors have the "right" to use physical force to expel people. Violence isn't "regrettably going to lead to some violent incidents", it's an advocation for violence in the first place.
09:42 E<•Elara> look, there are two main disruptive problems when you're running a protest. one is counter-protestors messing you up; the other is violent nutters or extremists who are "supportive" of the protest's goals but will completely ruin it for everybody else by making the news headline about looting and rioting instead of the protest, or by getting everything shut
09:42 down by riot police, or whatever
09:42 they're both tricky to deal with, but you can do a certain amount by being well organised and using moral suasion - basically, more speech
09:43 F<Fulvus> And if a protest is to demonstrate the outcry of the public and gain attention for the truth a population is dealing with, a counter-protest is part of that process. Not a disruption, but a reminder to the world that no, some of these positions are NOT popular. It's pefectly acceptable for your protest to be publically seen as not popular if it isn't popular.
09:43 E<•Elara> some people however will not respond well to being asked nicely, will not respond to being persuaded, and will not take well to being blocked from proceeding with the protest march or whatever
09:44 F<Fulvus> And the reason this shit is becoming increasingly less popular much to that movements chagrin is because it's a mockery of itself that advocates physical and intellectual violence. (Intellectual in this case being censorship.)
09:44 E<•Elara> counter protest is fine, but it needs to be like, on the other side of a street or something, not mixed up right in the middle
09:45 F<Fulvus> I agree that clustering into an opposing group to disrupt them is wrong, but physical expulsion isn't the answer.
09:45 It just gets circular and you're validating the oppositions concerns.
09:46 E<•Elara> it shouldn't be the first tool to hand, but it is a tool that protestors can use, both to keep counter-protestors out and to keep their own extremists under control
09:46 F<Fulvus> Leading them to think you're an even more oppressive, violent, and cultish movement, which makes them want to resist harder.
09:47 I'm getting to the point that if I see some bullshit "protest" going down in Houston I'd be inclined to go down there and oppose them as well, because the culture that's forming these things is something I'm beginning to have a MAJOR ethical problem with.
09:49 E<•Elara> the main point is not what the counter-protestors think
09:49 it's what the public at large thinks
09:49 F<Fulvus> Protests are indicative of what the public at large thinks. That's clear.
09:49 E<•Elara> people tend to find a peaceful protest a bit annoying, but a violent one makes them angry
09:50 most people aren't involved in protests in either direction, that's the point
09:50 there's a bigger audience than those in the street, no matter what they're out in the street for
09:50 F<Fulvus> So what counter-protestors express is ALSO indicative that the general public is rejecting that shit, and people watching on the television have a right to know that.
09:51 E<•Elara> as a distinct protest. got nothing against seeing a smattering of fash and a big counter-protest the other side of the street showing that most people reject it
09:52 F<Fulvus> And something that the general public is quickly finding out is that all these so-called movements against "fascism", "hitler" and "nazis" are fucking violent and advocate for stances of censorship and hate.
09:52 https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1486025000753.webm
09:53 ^ People getting beaten in the fucking street at Berkeley. No real outcry as of yet.
09:54 E<•Elara> there's a lot of anger out there. a lot of people scared, lashing out, doing things they shouldn't.
09:57 F<Fulvus> The problem is that all this bullshit is coming across as reaction against trumps "hate" and "oppression", but the only ones actually comitting violence are the people that are against it! That's absurd! They're using flimsy moral justification to condone savagery, legitimate savagery and rampant divisive hatred. This isn't about a peaceful movement becoming unfortunately violent because they're so scared and vulnerable. This is about the movement
09:57 becoming violent as a baseline.
09:59 "Oh, I called that guy a Nazi and proceeded to beat him into unconsciousness because I'm so scared about the oppressive totalitarian state America is becoming." is completely ridiculous, and that kind of logic is common now.
10:00 Doesn't excuse a thing.
10:00 E<•Elara> I think the view that the protests are where all the violence is coming from is a really skewed one
10:01 because if there weren't a lot of violence already being enacted, the protests wouldn't have remotely the force that they do
10:01 for example the repeated killings of black people by police that led to Black Lives Matter existing in the first place
10:02 F<Fulvus> This isn't about protests. It's about the regressive left advocating for violence and their protests reflecting it now.
10:02 Whatever conditions lead to them being violent is irrelevant, it doesn't excuse their behavior.
10:03 Notice I'm not going around saying that the counter-protestors should start beating the hell out of people because the violence from the other protests drove them to it.
10:03 E<•Elara> yeah, no. context is always important; if not as a defence then as a plea in mitigation
10:03 F<Fulvus> Because that's not an excuse.
10:03 No matter what's happening "Let's riot!" isn't an ethical answer, and I'm upset with this culture that wants to set the country on fire while making false claims to some kind of absurd moral superiority. This shit is getting out of hand.
10:04 E<•Elara> you seem to be projecting the existence of extremists into a general view of everybody unhappy with the status quo
10:05 F<Fulvus> Elara, it's a unified trend. This is a bloc of people.
10:06 E<•Elara> no it isn't
10:06 F<Faustus> It's not an easy issue, and neither side is entirely in the right. The problem is that these protests can't seem to keep peaceful. Both from reasons internal and external.
10:06 E<•Elara> it might become one, but it's not even close to a bloc right now
10:07 F<Fulvus> Remember how Gamergate was sexist? You could make the argument that it's only extremists, but the fact of the matter is that as a whole very few of these people/protests are peacefully inclined.
10:07 And it's only getting worse.
10:07 F<Faustus> I'm all for protests, so long as they do not become violent or obstructive. Obviously a bit more of an order is needed, but that's a difficult middle ground to strike.
10:08 F<Fulvus> When you have a bloc of people unified by a rabid dogmatic viewpoint that they are crusaders of justice against literal nazis, they're going to have an "any means necessary" approach. This is clear, and it's escalating.
10:08 E<•Elara> on inauguration day, over 2 million people engaged in protests, the Women's Marches
10:08 there was no significant violence involved
10:08 that's the biggest day of protest in terms of raw number of attendees that the US has ever seen, and it was peaceful
10:09 that doesn't make sense if very few protests are peacefully inclined
10:09 F<Fulvus> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/
10:09 _<•_> [ Inauguration protests: Police injured, more than 200 arrested - CNNPolitics.com ] - www.cnn.com
10:10 E<•Elara> Bursts of chaos erupted on 12th and K streets as black-clad "antifascist" protesters <- Antifa. not BLM, not the women's marchers
10:10 ⇐ •Lacks quit (Lacks@net-8rgrhm.cable.rogers.com) Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client
10:10 F<Faustus> But were they in the protest?
10:11 E<•Elara> also 6 police being injured when 2 million people marched (I note they don't mention how many protestors were injured...) is virtually nothing
10:11 F<Fulvus> Antifa is just a militant branch of that spectrum, same as how the black panthers were a militant branch of the civil rights movement.
10:11 F<Faustus> Virtually nothing is not the same as peaceful
10:11 E<•Elara> well who counts as part of the protest, Faustus? are you part of the protest just by being out on the same day?
10:11 or do you have to actually agree with the aims and methods of the protest?
10:11 F<Faustus> Did they?
10:12 E<•Elara> because for example in this country it's an ongoing theme that any vaguely leftist protest, if it seems to be popular, will be hijacked by the Socialist Workers Party
10:13 F<Fulvus> The number "2 million" only exists because ALL of the people out on inauguration day calling themselves protestors were counted.
10:13 E<•Elara> they're not violent, they're just dogmatic nutters, but it's still really tough to avoid having a protest that doesn't end up being run by the Soccies
10:13 F<Faustus> People getting hurt at a protest in general exempts it from the label of 'peaceful'. This isn't a purely leftist thing, protests seem to be tending to more violence, and that's startling.
10:13 F<Fulvus> Those numbers are so high because all the protests around the globe are being rebranded "women's marches".
10:13 E<•Elara> likewise once a violent anarchist group exists that tags along with protests, how the fuck are a peaceful protest organisation meant to stop them from tagging along?
10:14 F<Faustus> I don't know, that's the question I'm positing
10:14 F<Fulvus> Maybe they should start by condeming the behavior.
10:14 Hasn't happened yet.
10:14 E<•Elara> maybe they have, and you just aren't paying attention?
10:14 F<Fulvus> Give me an example of any form of official statement on the matter.
10:16 I'll be honest, I don't know for sure, because I don't run in those cirlces. But I am pretty certain that those people are not only not being condemned for their actions, they are considered a point of pride.
10:17 For example, the ADULATION for that guy that punches Richard Spencer in the face.
10:18 E<•Elara> who do you want a statement from? BLM has repeatedly spoken out against violence, for example
10:19 F<Fulvus> Black Lives Matter is a hashtag campaign with no leadership.
10:20 E<•Elara> it's actually a whole lot of things, and one of the things it is is a loose network of activists who have some leadership
10:20 and that leadership is on record as opposing violence
10:21 F<Faustus> I'm seriously missing any possible solution here other than more accountability and organization at protests, which seems contrary to their very nature.
10:22 E<•Elara> if the police weren't part of the problem, better policing of protests could be at least a partial solution
10:22 F<Faustus> I'm not sure if police are part of the problem
10:22 E<•Elara> but when a lot of the protests are about police violence, more police presence doesn't look like a good option
10:22 F<Fulvus> I suppose that's true, and I'll concede that one, but the people I'm talking abour are the general populace making up the bulk of the zeitgeist anyway.
10:23 F<Faustus> Were these motivated by police violence as protests?
10:23 E<•Elara> the inauguration day ones specifically weren't, no
10:23 but BLM is, and part of the driver for the Occupy groupings was police violence along with inequality
10:24 F<Faustus> I mean, going out and assaulting people almost seems like provoking violence. Is it alright when police respond in kind?
10:24 F<Fulvus> To get the general pulse of what the people I'm talking about are thinking, I literally just went to tumblr and typed in "Protests".
10:25 In the most popular section it's cram-packed with people applauding this as a victory.
10:28 E<•Elara> policing can shut down violent protestors without having to shut down the peaceful protestors, but to achieve that there has to be a reasonable relationship between police & the peaceful protestors
10:28 otherwise we get kettling and all that shit, and it all turns into a shitshow
10:29 F<Fulvus> Anyway, I'm disgusted and am becoming increasingly disgusted the more I'm researching these people. It's 4:30am and I have class tomorrow, so I'm disengaging.
10:30 F<Faustus> Self-policing may be a better idea if this is a notably fringe group.
10:30 ⇐ •VereorNox quit (ILoveVar@net-s762vl.pools.vodafone-ip.de) Ping timeout: 181 seconds
10:30 E<•Elara> get some sleep, Fulvus, things might look better in the morning
10:31 Faustus self-policing is a nice idea, but again the question becomes: what tools do you actually have, as a protest, to self-police?
10:32 F<Fulvus> Thanks. I'll leave with the olive branch that honestly I'm just really pissed off at the moment because I've seen video of people getting beaten and it was applauded, and I've been seeing similar stuff for years.
10:32 I know everyone isn't like that though.
10:32 E<•Elara> you can not invite people, they might show up anyway. you can try to persuade people, the dogmatic ones can ignore you. you can try to tell the media that these people aren't with you; that probably won't help much.
10:32 F<Faustus> Barring facial coverings? That may interfere with anonymity, but would aid accountability for your actions.
10:33 E<•Elara> if it helps, I know someone who's generally leftist and humanitarian. theunitofcaring on Tumblr. she's well worth reading
10:33 actually forget I said that, I'll re-recommend it at a more reasonable hour for you
10:33 barring facial coverings, sure Faustus, but how do you enforce that if people refuse?
10:34 → EllardyAway joined (uid178344@highgate.irccloud.com)
10:34 F<Faustus> I have no clue, I don't generally protest or follow protests
10:34 ⇐ Fulvus quit (Fulvus@net-tlkuhc.it.uh.edu) Quit: Goodbye
10:35 E<•Elara> if people won't be persuaded by words, you eventually have to throw them out of your protest by force (or accept that all of your peaceful protests are going to be turned into violent ones by the fringe nutters)
10:36 F<Faustus> If it's truly solutionless and there's no way to remove violence from the equation, is it really worth having the protest rather than letting the agitators protest on their own?
10:36 It sort of sours the image
10:36 E<•Elara> should people really give up on all protests, just because there are some violent nuts out there? that doesn't sound like a good solution
10:37 F<Faustus> But is it really producing the change you want if every time you rally behind it someone ends up in the hospital?
10:38 E<•Elara> most of the issues people are protesting over end up with people in the hospital. that or the morgue
10:39 F<Faustus> It's painted a really easy picture for the opposition to portray the cause as inherently violent.
10:41 E<•Elara> I know, and that's a problem, but that doesn't mean we should give up on having protests at all
10:41 F<Faustus> <Faustus> If it's truly solutionless and there's no way to remove violence from the equation, is it really worth having the protest rather than letting the agitators protest on their own?
10:41 If there's a solution, I'm all for it
10:42 But violent protests fall very easily on the side of things that I do not support, or find particularly effective at swaying opinion.
10:43 E<•Elara> part of the problem is that people are prepared to let the actions of a very few people mar a protest of many, many more. 2 million people can peacefully protest, and a few dozen nutters tagging along mean you're not prepared to call it a peaceful protest
10:45 → JulesVern joined (Kanaan@net-s762vl.pools.vodafone-ip.de)
10:46 F<Faustus> Because people still ended up hurt by that protest. It's not peaceful, by the very definition of the term.
10:46 So naturally a lot of people take issue with even small amounts of violence.
10:49 E<•Elara> a peaceful protest, IMO, is based on the aims and methods of the main body of protestors and their leadership (if any exists)
10:50 if a fight kicks off and the main body of protestors gets involved in rioting, it's no longer a peaceful protest. if most protestors come out, do their march, wave signs, shout slogans, whatever, then go home without being involved in any fighting, it's largely a peaceful protest even if a small minority did get in a fight with the
10:50 police/counterprotestors/each other/whatever
10:50 F<Faustus> Unfortunately not many people share that opinion
10:51 J<JulesVern> Is this about Berkley
10:51 F<Faustus> I don't know, I just saw discussion about protests and felt the need to comment that they are, in general, getting more violent
10:51 E<•Elara> protests in general, Vern
10:52 J<JulesVern> Oh ok
10:52 Not that Berkley was a protest
10:52 That was just shitheads rioting
10:53 E<•Elara> I mean it started from Fulvus linking a thing about Berkeley, but it's spread out a bit from that
11:04 R<Roarian> lol: https://twitter.com/deepdrumpf?lang=en
11:04 _<•_> [ DeepDrumpf (@DeepDrumpf) | Twitter ] - twitter.com
11:04 ⇐ JulesVern quit (Kanaan@net-s762vl.pools.vodafone-ip.de) Quit: Leaving
11:05 R<Roarian> Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it generally terrible. - markov trump
11:07 these have to be handpicked or something, some of them are too perfect
11:07 EllardyAway → Ellardy
11:07 R<Roarian> Every American will be treated equally, protected from the Hispanic Americans. - markov trump
11:07 E<Ellardy> Reading through them, no way those are random
11:08 R<Roarian> not all of them make sense or work that well, but yes
11:08 maybe cherrypicked by the author
11:22 Faustus → FaustAsleep
11:24 R<Roarian> well... https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/
11:24 _<•_> [ Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination | The Nation ] - www.thenation.com
11:24 R<Roarian> i guess that rumor might have a basis in truth after all
12:08 → Fossil joined (uid191092@hathersage.irccloud.com)
12:21 <•Gundor> ... *sigh*
12:21 I just found myself wanting to believe something published by the Daily Mail
12:21 E<•Elara> ha, what was it?
12:21 G<•Gundor> nope I should be consistent and wait and see if somebody else confirms this
12:21 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html
12:21 _<•_> [ Trump's SCOTUS pick founded club called 'Fascism Forever' | Daily Mail Online ] - www.dailymail.co.uk
12:22 G<•Gundor> if true that was 2/3 of his life ago
12:24 E<•Elara> it seems likely to be true, but it is indeed basically mudslinging
12:25 have you seen any good breakdowns of actual decisions he's made on previous cases, or what's known about his personal views?
12:37 E<Ellardy> I've seen a list of his past stances
12:37 *rulings
12:37 I can't remember where
12:38 P<Peng_> Lawfare has a list of national security related decisions. I haven't read it. And they're nat sec establishment types anyway. https://www.lawfareblog.com/neil-gorsuch-national-security-law
12:38 _<•_> [ Neil Gorsuch on National Security Law - Lawfare ] - www.lawfareblog.com
12:40 G<•Gundor> I'm kind of surprised the Daily Mail is slinging mud at Trump's SCotUS pick
12:41 Fossil → FossilLord
12:43 E<•Elara> nah
12:44 Daily Mail likes to make itself look moderate by throwing shit at US rightwingers
12:46 G<•Gundor> ahh
12:47 E<•Elara> I think that's why they do it, anyway. it's definitely a theme in their coverage of US issues