Berkeley Protests, the old ultra-violence

[TSwizzle]

Because you know what would have been *even more effective*? If the paltry little march the Trumpsters managed to organize would have gone on and not become news. Instead, they become the heroes. It's asinine. A bunch of idiots being lead by even bigger idiots.

I agree but as far as the ANTIFA crowd are concerned, anything they disagree with is fair game for a counter demo. Most of them are just a bunch of whiny, right on adolescents egged on by adults who should know better. But the video was very entertaining.

 

[Opoponax]

I disagree. Antifa is an extreme manifestation of a general ideological trend that has its roots in post-modernist thought which has come to dominate the humanities and, to a lesser extent, social science departments.

Post-modernism has its roots in the works of men like Heiddegar (who ironically was a Nazi), Derrida, and Foucault (who ironically died flirting with Stoicism). You can think of post-modernism as essentially the position that truth doesn't exist, reason doesn't exist, and claims to knowledge are merely discourses between inherently opposing and adversarial power structures. A lot of it is self defeating, but because they have dispensed with the logos they don't seem to mind, and have essentially been producing masturbatory drivel for the past half-century, especially since most of the people who engage in it now do not have the raw intellectual quality of some of the founders. And that's no surprise, because the only sorts people going into this stuff anymore are followers and sheep - the sort who never question what they are taught by their professors, who themselves were a bunch of followers from a previous generation. In any event, this in combination with the various subgenres of cultural studies, have essentially established a cult that students are indoctrinated into.

....

I have been thinking about this very subject. About how the post-modernism of the left paved the way for Trumpism and its alternative facts. Especially the left's relativism, that truth is not an absolute, that it changes depending on who is viewing it. Is this any different than the views of Trump that facts are anything that supports his viewpoint and that further inflates his considerable ego and that anything that doesn't are fake facts?

Differing interpretations of what, how, and why X happened is nothing new. And the idea that someone from Y culture may view the same set of fact differently is not really new either, it's just something that had more light shed on it. That's far different from "I had the most people ever at my inauguration" or "It was the biggest electoral landslide in 50 years." Those statements are objectively contrary to reality.

Trump is a trollish shithead who, if he has any firm ideological ideas, were formed based on his upbringing and experience as a sure thing rich guy celebrity. So sure, he perceives the world in some way that's based on that, and it's his right to perceive the world the way he does. How could he perceive it any other way? The thing is though, he fucking lies, provably fucking lies about meaningless things, yet his supporters believe him despite undeniable evidence.

I don't want to go overboard with the whole 1984 thing because we're not even close to that. However, there are shades of it in Trump's statements and his follower's reactions to those statements. And that scares the shit out of me.

 

[Opoponax]

Violence in the face of tyranny is no vice.

The problem is that both extremes believe that.

Well, it depends on what one's political philosophy is. Locke and Rousseau both said that a government that functions contrary to the good of the people has lost the right to govern and must be replaced (I'm paraphrasing. It's been a long time since I read either). Therefore, violent reaction/overthrow is perfectly in keeping with that particular ideal. We're not at the point where the choices are don't resist and die or resist and die, so violence isn't necessary. It could also be fairly said that replacing/overthrowing the government can take place at the ballot box rather than at the point of a rifle.

As of right now, the GOP controls Congress, the Executive, and SCOTUS. We are much closer to tyranny than we were on November 7, 2016. We aren't there, and it would take some doing. But an overnight decision by enough conservative leaders could get us there pretty quickly. And there are more than enough citizens who would support it and take action/orders to carry it out.

I do not suggest violence right now. It's not needed. What I do suggest is that progressives accept that guns aren't going anywhere, and based on that, get at least one and learn how to use it. Because from what I read on other forums, many of these conservative motherfuckers want us dead and they'd gleefully take part in making that happen.

 

[J842P]

Right... So, Antifa is a real thing in San Francisco. I'm living here right now. You'll hear amazingly blasé talk about "killing fascists." These people are serious. If you watch the clips (on youtube) you'll see the violence this particular brawl was started by Antifa, when a group of them grabbed a dumpster and tried to shove it into the group of Trump supporters. Unfortunately - and this is what I keep saying - these are a bunch of pussies (who would be triggered by the word pussy) - trying to play anarchist revolutionary. Two giant dudes form the Trump supporters caught the dumpster and shoved it back into the Antifa line. Their line broke, and then this was the route. It was a brawl. This chick didn't get sucker-punched, she came looking for a fight, engaged in one, and then got hit in the face.

Your justification for the sucker punch is truly disturbing. Pushing a dumpster into a group of people is not a justification for anyone to sucker punch anyone else. And notice I did not bring any ideological labels on either side. It would be just as wrong if the roles were reversed.

You need to improve your reading comprehension. I was not justifying it due to the dumpster pushing. I'm saying it wasn't a "sucker punch." It was a *brawl*. If you decide to engage in a brawl and get punched, that is your own damn fault . My own personal opinion is that anyone who goes to a brawl or participates in a brawl (both sides) are a bunch of morons. Indeed, aside from being fascinating in a train-wreck sort of way, this was a gross display of stupidity for both sides. But if you decide to engage in mob violence, I'm not going to feel very sorry for you if you get hit. And this person didn't get caught up in a brawl, but went to the event looking to engage in violence. They hopefully learned a lesson that engaging in violence is not something to be taken lightly.

And you don't have to bring any ideological labels into the discussion. The fact that you have bought your side's narrative uncritically and now are engaging in pearl-clutching over a woman getting "sucker punched" by They Evil Other Side is enough as it stands.

 

[laughing dog]

Your justification for the sucker punch is truly disturbing. Pushing a dumpster into a group of people is not a justification for anyone to sucker punch anyone else. And notice I did not bring any ideological labels on either side. It would be just as wrong if the roles were reversed.

You need to improve your reading comprehension. I was not justifying it due to the dumpster pushing. I'm saying it wasn't a "sucker punch." It was a *brawl*.

Oh, so it was a brawl because of the dumpster pushing. And that justifies a violent reaction. Thank you for the lesson in idiotic hair splitting.

If you decide to engage in a brawl and get punched, that is your own damn fault .

The assumption that everyone in attendance was looking for violence is extremely questionable.

My own personal opinion is that anyone who goes to a brawl or participates in a brawl (both sides) are a bunch of morons. Indeed, aside from being fascinating in a train-wreck sort of way, this was a gross display of stupidity for both sides. But if you decide to engage in mob violence, I'm not going to feel very sorry for you if you get hit. And this person didn't get caught up in a brawl, but went to the event looking to engage in violence. They hopefully learned a lesson that engaging in violence is not something to be taken lightly.

A very enlightened approach since one possible lesson from that is to come armed.

And you don't have to bring any ideological labels into the discussion. The fact that you have bought your side's narrative uncritically and now are engaging in pearl-clutching over a woman getting "sucker punched" by They Evil Other Side is enough as it stands.

You need to improve your reading comprehension. I did not react to the gender of anyone. On the other hand, the fact you have brought your side's narrative to uncritically endorse violence against the Evil Other side is enough as it stands.

 

[arcadia]

Litttle Lord kiran

LordKiran;That's the part that drives us nuts. These KIDS honestly think they can go toe-to-toe with country boys and army vets? These pussy-foot white boys with glass jaws and dotting parents? Fucking really?

Gee, I wonder why you scaredy-cat country boys with big guns and jacked up trucks, didn't manage to overrun all of SE Asia a couple of decades ago. Sadly for you, ideas and thought count much more than fists and guns in this country. May it ever be so. By the way, what's the matter with "white boys"?

 

[J842P]

You need to improve your reading comprehension. I was not justifying it due to the dumpster pushing. I'm saying it wasn't a "sucker punch." It was a *brawl*.

Oh, so it was a brawl because of the dumpster pushing. And that justifies a violent reaction. Thank you for the lesson in idiotic hair splitting.

If you decide to engage in a brawl and get punched, that is your own damn fault .

The assumption that everyone in attendance was looking for violence is extremely questionable.

My own personal opinion is that anyone who goes to a brawl or participates in a brawl (both sides) are a bunch of morons. Indeed, aside from being fascinating in a train-wreck sort of way, this was a gross display of stupidity for both sides. But if you decide to engage in mob violence, I'm not going to feel very sorry for you if you get hit. And this person didn't get caught up in a brawl, but went to the event looking to engage in violence. They hopefully learned a lesson that engaging in violence is not something to be taken lightly.

A very enlightened approach since one possible lesson from that is to come armed.

And you don't have to bring any ideological labels into the discussion. The fact that you have bought your side's narrative uncritically and now are engaging in pearl-clutching over a woman getting "sucker punched" by They Evil Other Side is enough as it stands.

You need to improve your reading comprehension. I did not react to the gender of anyone. On the other hand, the fact you have brought your side's narrative to uncritically endorse violence against the Evil Other side is enough as it stands.

My side *is your side*. And there are very good reasons to believe that people who came as Antifa did in fact come to commit violence (their own expressed intent, their history, etc), and indeed, there are social media posts of this *particular person* that evidence the fact that they came with the intent to commit violence.

And I'm not hairsplitting, you are just being ridiculously obtuse. The dumpster throwing didn't start the brawl. That was part of one of many on-going brawls. It was a giant scene of mob violence.

And to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that you were reacting to the gender. I should have not said woman but person.

In any event, I don't know how you could possibly misconstrue anything I've said as an endorsement of violence, when I've been completely clear that everyone engaging in said violence was acting entirely idiotically. My only point was that people who go to an event with the expressed purpose of engaging in mob violence don't deserve sympathy for being punched in the face during a brawl that they chose to participate and directly incited.

And yes, you are absolutely right. The chances are high that these sorts of melees will only escalate. It is very plausible that the next time (likely when Ann Coulter shows up) people will upgrade to knives and bats over rocks and m80s. And next will certainly be guns. Yay America!

And while it might seem I am being overly critical of the Left, just consider that I may have higher standards for my own side. And also, it pisses me off that these privileged morons with zero historical perspective act in a way that is almost ripped out of some Nazis' playbook on how to subversively effect an authoritarian take-over, but it will be the poor minorities that will bear the major burden of such a turn of events, while these Antifa idiots will go back to their parent's McMansion in Marin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Willingness to use violence against dissenters or out-groups is one of the hallmark features of Right Wing Authoritarianism. There also seemed to be a group of black-clad "anarchists" (read paid agents provocateurs) that instigated the clash, probably to discredit the protestors.

Willingness to use violence against dissenters or out-groups is one of the hallmark features of Right Wing Authoritarianism. There also seemed to be a group of black-clad "anarchists" (read paid agents provocateurs) that instigated the clash, probably to discredit the protestors.

Extremists of the left and right use violence against those they don't like. The Ultra Left focus on suppressing free speech as well as attacking in the same way as the ultra right do.

Here idiots of the left and right had nothing better to do than engage in punch ups.

The extremes of both sides are bad.

Although, in this case I think the "anarchist" black bloc protesters are being funded from the right. They seem too organized to just be casual protesters and I think a leftist organization would realize it's counterproductive to fund them. (They might not realize where the funding is coming from, though.)

 

[J842P]

LordKiran;That's the part that drives us nuts. These KIDS honestly think they can go toe-to-toe with country boys and army vets? These pussy-foot white boys with glass jaws and dotting parents? Fucking really?

Gee, I wonder why you scaredy-cat country boys with big guns and jacked up trucks, didn't manage to overrun all of SE Asia a couple of decades ago. Sadly for you, ideas and thought count much more than fists and guns in this country. May it ever be so. By the way, what's the matter with "white boys"?

Those soldier boys managed to murder millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians, so while you may taunt them for their failed attempt at colonizing the Vietnamese, I for one would not like to see a similar attempt here...

 

[J842P]

Willingness to use violence against dissenters or out-groups is one of the hallmark features of Right Wing Authoritarianism. There also seemed to be a group of black-clad "anarchists" (read paid agents provocateurs) that instigated the clash, probably to discredit the protestors.

Extremists of the left and right use violence against those they don't like. The Ultra Left focus on suppressing free speech as well as attacking in the same way as the ultra right do.

Here idiots of the left and right had nothing better to do than engage in punch ups.

The extremes of both sides are bad.

Although, in this case I think the "anarchist" black bloc protesters are being funded from the right. They seem too organized to just be casual protesters and I think a leftist organization would realize it's counterproductive to fund them. (They might not realize where the funding is coming from, though.)

I know it's hard to believe, but Antifa is a real, grass-roots phenomenon. I hear these kids talk openly about it in coffeeshops (say what you will about Anarchists, but they make a good espresso).

While I wouldn't be surprised if there were subversive elements on the Right somehow supporting these groups, I think Antifa would still exist and these events would still occur without such funding. It doesn't exactly take a major funding apparatus and shadowy puppeteers to buy some clubs and m80s, some black clothing, and a BART ticket to Berkeley. It it's very easy to make a social media post getting all your idiot friends to come along to "kill some fascists."

 

[laughing dog]

My side *is your side*. And there are very good reasons to believe that people who came as Antifa did in fact come to commit violence (their own expressed intent, their history, etc), and indeed, there are social media posts of this *particular person* that evidence the fact that they came with the intent to commit violence.

Unless you are claiming this was either pre-emptive sucker punch or an explicitly defensive sucker punch against that person, your point is irrelevant.

And I'm not hairsplitting, you are just being ridiculously obtuse. The dumpster throwing didn't start the brawl. That was part of one of many on-going brawls. It was a giant scene of mob violence.

Unless you are claiming that mob violence justifies more mob violence, your response is an example of obtuseness personified.

In any event, I don't know how you could possibly misconstrue anything I've said as an endorsement of violence, when I've been completely clear that everyone engaging in said violence was acting entirely idiotically. My only point was that people who go to an event with the expressed purpose of engaging in mob violence don't deserve sympathy for being punched in the face during a brawl that they chose to participate and directly incited.

You wrote what you wrote. I was not expressing sympathy for the victim nor advocating sympathy.

 

[J842P]

Unless you are claiming this was either pre-emptive sucker punch or an explicitly defensive sucker punch against that person, your point is irrelevant.

And I'm not hairsplitting, you are just being ridiculously obtuse. The dumpster throwing didn't start the brawl. That was part of one of many on-going brawls. It was a giant scene of mob violence.

Unless you are claiming that mob violence justifies more mob violence, your response is an example of obtuseness personified.

In any event, I don't know how you could possibly misconstrue anything I've said as an endorsement of violence, when I've been completely clear that everyone engaging in said violence was acting entirely idiotically. My only point was that people who go to an event with the expressed purpose of engaging in mob violence don't deserve sympathy for being punched in the face during a brawl that they chose to participate and directly incited.

You wrote what you wrote. I was not expressing sympathy for the victim nor advocating sympathy.

No, I'm arguing that this wasn't a sucker punch, and this person wasn't a victim. Indeed, this persons own fists were raised against the guy who landed the punch. A sucker punch implies some sort of surprise, where the person getting sucker-punched is not ready for a fight. You shouldn't be surprised that you got punched in the face when you participate in a melee. If I go to, say, a Christian demonstration against - I don't know, the teaching of evolution or something - and start a brawl with these Christian demonstrators, and during the course of that brawl I get punched in the face, then I am not a "victim" and I did not get "sucker punched."

But if you are not expressing sympathy or advocating sympathy, then we don't disagree. Case closed.

But I doubt that actually is the case, it is just your usual tactic of irrelevant nitpicking and relying on obtusely literal meanings of the words you chose rather than actually addressing the core of any issue, so you can act like you are some sort of rational, platonic observer meting out impartial condemnation. Both of the specific terms you chose carry connotations that would imply a sympathetic view of the person being labelled a victim or the person being sucker-punched. But let me guess, you only meant "the injured party" when you said "victim", and certainly didn't mean to imply that anyone should be sympathetic.

 

[ronburgundy]

You need to improve your reading comprehension. I was not justifying it due to the dumpster pushing. I'm saying it wasn't a "sucker punch." It was a *brawl*.

Oh, so it was a brawl because of the dumpster pushing. And that justifies a violent reaction.

Trying to crush others with a 500 pound rolling steel box far more violent and potentially lethal than a punch. Antifa initiated a violent attack on a group they outnumbered 5 to 1. They used the dumpster as weapon rather than just engaging them directly because they are cowards, but still criminally violent cowards against whom a violent response in self-defense is fully justified. There is also evidence that Antifa engaged in violent assault and robbery of some of they bystanders merely taking video and not on either side of the brawl.

If you decide to engage in a brawl and get punched, that is your own damn fault .

The assumption that everyone in attendance was looking for violence is extremely questionable.

It is extremely reasonable to assume violent intent and culpability of anyone disguises their face as a part of known group of violent criminals that initiates violent assaults against people engaged in speech.

 

[laughing dog]

It is extremely reasonable to assume violent intent and culpability of anyone disguises their face as a part of known group of violent criminals that initiates violent assaults against people engaged in speech.

I agree that it is extremely reasonable for a white supremacist and reactionaries to assume that anyone with the lower part of their face hidden is part of a known group of violent criminals that initiates violent assaults against people engaged in speech.

 

[SimpleDon]

I have been thinking about this very subject. About how the post-modernism of the left paved the way for Trumpism and its alternative facts. Especially the left's relativism, that truth is not an absolute, that it changes depending on who is viewing it. Is this any different than the views of Trump that facts are anything that supports his viewpoint and that further inflates his considerable ego and that anything that doesn't are fake facts?

I'm pretty sure the pioneers of post-modern thought would have taken issue with "Truth is not absolute" being used as justification by sycophants to espouse demonstrably false narratives. I mean saying that the truth isn't absolute isn't the same thing as saying "Falsities are subjective."

I don't doubt that the post-modernists would take issue with the idea that their ideas were being used to support fake facts. But they are on record as abandoning the enlightenment's objective truth, a position shared with Trumpism.

Trumpism certainly carries it to absurd levels, but it is post-modernism that opened the door.

It seems to me that the political spectrum isn't a linear progression from fascism on the far right to communism and state socialism on the far left as it is an incomplete circle bending on itself with the extreme elements sharing some characteristics such as authoritarianism, rabid dedication to ideology instead of empirical reason and the need to change the basic nature of man.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is extremely reasonable to assume violent intent and culpability of anyone disguises their face as a part of known group of violent criminals that initiates violent assaults against people engaged in speech.

I agree that it is extremely reasonable for a white supremacist and reactionaries to assume that anyone with the lower part of their face hidden is part of a known group of violent criminals that initiates violent assaults against people engaged in speech.

She did not merely have her face hidden. She was there with a group, all dressed in black and most wearing partial masks, who are known for starting violent attacks on innocent people in the areas, and who were actively trying to assault people at the time.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I'm arguing that this wasn't a sucker punch, and this person wasn't a victim. Indeed, this persons own fists were raised against the guy who landed the punch. A sucker punch implies some sort of surprise, where the person getting sucker-punched is not ready for a fight. You shouldn't be surprised that you got punched in the face when you participate in a melee. If I go to, say, a Christian demonstration against - I don't know, the teaching of evolution or something - and start a brawl with these Christian demonstrators, and during the course of that brawl I get punched in the face, then I am not a "victim" and I did not get "sucker punched."

If she was rushing to break up an attack, then it most certainly could be viewed as a sucker punch. For some reason, you feel that calling it a punch somehow makes it less indefensible.

But I doubt that actually is the case, it is just your usual tactic of irrelevant nitpicking and relying on obtusely literal meanings of the words you chose rather than actually addressing the core of any issue, so you can act like you are some sort of rational, platonic observer meting out impartial condemnation....

I think the core of the issue is that this violence by anyone was wrong. Apparently, you feel the core of the issue is whether someone who is injured through violence is deserving or undeserving of your sympathy. While you are entitled to your sympathies and groundless doubts, it is rather arrogant to assume that everyone will necessarily agree with them.

 

[LordKiran]

If she was rushing to break up an attack, then it most certainly could be viewed as a sucker punch. For some reason, you feel that calling it a punch somehow makes it less indefensible.

I mean....Doesn't it? It's not unreasonable to claim a sucker-punch on an unsuspecting party is worse than a punch to the face against a voluntary belligerent.

I'm not exactly keen on seeing violence in the streets over ideological differences, btw.

 

[ronburgundy]

If she was rushing to break up an attack, then it most certainly could be viewed as a sucker punch. For some reason, you feel that calling it a punch somehow makes it less indefensible.

Punches in self defense are completely defensible and the odds are overwhelming that she was there to start and not to break up violence. She chose to be part of a group well known for starting violence against people who say things they don't like. She went with her violent group to confront the Trumpsters, not the other way around. The video shows not one of the Antifa people trying to stop their fellow fascists from engaging in violent attack against the Trumpsters, and shows that the Antifas getting within arms reach are trying to initiate a violent confrontation. If she was there to stop the violence she would have been grabbing her comrades and trying to prevent them from crushing the Trumpsters with the dumpster.
So, the odds that she was trying to stop the violent confrontation are near zero, making the punch just a punch that may have been and likely was justified self-defense.

 

[TSwizzle]

In the heat of battle, with the way she looks, face covered and all, it's not immediately obvious she's female. She's fair game in this melee.