Progressivist Protests

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Londoner »

“All of it began the first time some of you who know better, and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.”
- President Reagan, speaking to Berkley officials


The video says it was about whether a derelict site owned by the university should be used for a car park or a park. The person speaking before Reagan (a representative of the university) said this was something the university ought to be allowed to sort out for themselves.

Reagan then delivers the soundbite above and quickly walks away, so that nobody can reply.

I understand the area concerned is now a park.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

I don't get the impression, Londoner, that you have much grasp of Sixties politics and events. Nor California history. As I am from the Bay Area originally, and my parents were involved in the politics of the University, it is closer to home for me. To get a sense of what was going on in that park see this. To understand Reagan and conservative California reaction to the general youth rebellion is to look into and understand a crisis between the generations. Some years later when the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped Patty Hearst and demanded that Hearst donate millions of dollars of free food, Reagan's comment (as Governor) was that he hoped the food was contaminated by botulism. (So that those who went to accept the food would get sick).

There is however a concept and a principle behind opposition to a youth movement taking over land or any public property, even if it is for a 'good cause'. That principle will either be evident to you, or not, depending on your orientation and also your bias.

I see it, and the video footage makes it pretty clear, as essentially an *emotional* issue and one of hippy enthusiasm. What seemed right and good was felt to be right and good, and that made it 'right' and even ethical in the eyes of those who took over the park and turned it into a People's Park. That enthusiasm is pretty hard to resist because, obviously, people were having what looked to be a great deal of fun. But there is self-deception there, and also the 'arrogance of youth'. Despite how it *feels* no one can just do what they wish because it *feels* good to them. And this extends to the activities of a group or of a mass-movement.

Sixties activism and Sixties enthusiasm is often based on emotionalism and sentimentalism and the downside of the proponderance of emotionalism is that it tends to override the rational side. Once emotionalism is established in people, which by definition means that rationalism is suppressed, the worsening stages of it are unrestrained activism, social hysteria, etc. The curious thing, from my point of view, is that the Left is deeply concerned about fascistic currents (et cetera et cetera) and yet it acts out of and displays quite precisely the pathology it condemns. How one interprets this fact, and if one even considers it a *fact* to be considered, will depend on a person's perspective as well as their bias.

As Hobbes has clearly expressed --- he does not seem to have an inner-editor either for his ideas or his punctuation! --- the side he favors, because it is *right*, can do what it likes because it battles a greater evil. This sort of view becomes a bizarre solipsistic loop and an obviously circular method of reasoning. But that is what excessive emotionalism does. In the end it destroys intellect. Unfortunately, at least according to me, this is what is occurring in our universities: the destruction of the ability to think and reason clearly. There is causation involved, and I suggest that it extends from the problem of *emotionalism* and anti-rationalism which is linked to enthusiasm and hysteria.

The youth of the Sixties Movement felt it had a moral right to take over university offices, to occupy them, and to make demands on university government and by extension State government. The idea, in and of itself, when analysed closely, is not only unethical and unlawful, but represents a skewed view on the part of those who *felt* they could act jusfifiably out of enthusiastic impulses.

Political activism in the United States has a long history as does the repression of that activism. Sixties activism is still influential as a model of activism it seems to me. Over the last 2 years or so, and mostly in relation to the Black protests and the Black riots, the issue of just how far protestors and rioters will be allowed to go has come up. And to understand how the general population feels and interprets these events, though not complex, will lead one to a better grasp of the issue of extreme polarization which is occurring in the US. The better one understands a phenomenon, the better position one will have to make assessments and judgments about it.

Right off the bat, a certain section of people react against the idea of hooded rioters who set out to destroy property and also to destroy the possibilty of a public talk going forward. The principle involved is not hard to grasp and yet, as is obvious, how one adjudicates it at a personal level depends on one's bias.
Last edited by Gustav Bjornstrand on Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Immanuel Can wrote: However, I see your position: those you declare "right" can do anything they want. Those you declare "wrong" cannot. I've got it. It's the classic position of every totalitarian.
You have looked in a mirror and seen me!! :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

uwot wrote:And again:
"UC Berkeley condemns in the strongest possible terms the actions of individuals who invaded the campus, infiltrated a crowd of peaceful students, and used violent tactics to close down the event. We deeply regret that the violence unleashed by this group undermined the First Amendment rights of the speaker as well as those who came to lawfully assemble and protest his presence," university spokesman Dan Mogulof responded."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/02/mi ... -left.html

You really should learn to do some research, Mr Can.

Gus, take note: there is a profound difference between lawful protest and anarchy.
Fake News.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Londoner »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I don't get the impression, Londoner, that you have much grasp of Sixties politics and events. Nor California history. As I am from the Bay Area originally, and my parents were involved in the politics of the University, it is closer to home for me.
Gustav, you have identified yourself as a fan of the Nazis. Why would you imagine that anyone would respect your grasp of anything?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Immanuel Can »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Fake News.
Raw footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi_vX0tknJM

Make your own.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

A more accurate statement, Londoner, would be that you have identified me as a fan of the Nazis. One might then notice and talk about how you use your chosen description, and distortion, as a sort of 'fake news' sound-byte. This is a disease of the mind and it literally infects people. You inject your won interpretation into something or onto someone, assert that your interpetation is true or real, and convince other people to get on board. It is really a very destructive behavior. No one but you could come to the realization that it is pathological. No one outside of you could make this clear. In this sense it has to do with 'the inner man'. It is essentially a spiritual ailment is my understanding.

I assume this seems to you 'emotionally true' and when something is emotionally true, well, it must be true. These are circles and 'traps'. And it is exactly these circles and traps which have captured the Left. These are not mere assertions. They can be demonstrated with clear examples.

I certainly have said various things about the Germans, and WW2, and the complicity of all the players in the creation of the events of that war and the First War, but all of my statements have nuance, and all of my statements point in the direction of a larger picture which can be grasped, analyzed and thought-through. Binary statements charged with emotionalized opinions destroy that possibility, Londoner. Once you see this many things will become more clear.

What I hope to communicate here, and you are a very good example of this, is how statements and labels are used, unethically and deceptively, in order to undermine the possibility of conversation, to distort the facts, and to emotionally charge issues so that all that remains is flame-wars, bickering and the result is that people loose the possibility to communicate with one another. This is the opposite and the antithesis of a good philosophical approach.

There is another thing to notice: You essentially function out of an ad hominem position. You say that I am thus-and-such and therefor that no one should respect my grasp of anything. But the piece that I wrote on the People's Park is sensible and fair.

Do you see how emotional ad hominem works?
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Londoner »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:A more accurate statement, Londoner, would be that you have identified me as a fan of the Nazis. One might then notice and talk about how you use your chosen description, and distortion, as a sort of 'fake news' sound-byte. This is a disease of the mind and it literally infects people....
Blah, blah, blah...as usual, but not actually contradicting my assertion.
I certainly have said various things about the Germans, and WW2, and the complicity of all the players in the creation of the events of that war...
Yes, most notably that the Jews were complicit in the Holocaust, having a sort of collective death wish.
Do you see how emotional ad hominem works?
Any casual reader wondering whether my account of Gustav's views could possible be accurate is welcome to look through 'The Rise of a European and American 'New Right' thread under 'Political Philosophy'.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Walker »

Londoner wrote:“All of it began the first time some of you who know better, and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.”
- President Reagan, speaking to Berkley officials


The video says it was about whether a derelict site owned by the university should be used for a car park or a park. The person speaking before Reagan (a representative of the university) said this was something the university ought to be allowed to sort out for themselves.

Reagan then delivers the soundbite above and quickly walks away, so that nobody can reply.

I understand the area concerned is now a park.
Re: How President Reagan dealt with the Berkeley protesters in 1969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs


The video is is a specific example of a societal principle stated off-the-cuff by Reagan in the video.
Attention would be better served to focus on the principle rather than the hairstyle.

You see, he was the president.
When he stands, the discussion is over.
This is not for emotional reasons or to escape discussion.
It is because he is the chief executive in such matters.
He’s not going sit there squabbling and debating like a clerk-person.
He’s telling the other person the way it should have been, and the way it will be.
His people are there to iron out the details of the principle and if they can't, or won't, he will appoint someone who can, and later have his people deal with those who can't, and won't.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Fake News.
Raw footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi_vX0tknJM

Make your own.
It's still fake news because of the spin.
Truth; a few fire-cracker and lots of noise. Boo Hoo.

Want to see what RIGHT wing terrorism looks like?
http://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/images ... aghdad.jpg
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

There are a few things to notice in your approach to argument, Londoner. I will use you as an illustration and I will demonstrate how you, as one who exemplifies Left-Progressive tactics and self-view, structure your arguments.

You start with the assertion that I must 'contradict' your description of me. What you demand is that, and according to your view of things, I should come out with some sort of statement against that which you claim I am, or do, or say, or believe. You set this up as a moral test, and you set it up in such a way that I am bound to fail. If I agree to do what you demand, I undermine my own argument which is predicated on an understanding of profound complicity between all the players in that confict.

Second, you demand that I violate my own sovereignty as a free-agent and to incriminate myself before you. This is a ritual and a game of debasement and power that you wish to see enacted, and you see yourself, and you establish yourself, as a Judge in a tribunal. Now, I suggest to you that this is largely the position that the Progressive Left takes for itself, and it is essentially a child's game that is being played. This too extends from emotionalized, Sixties politics.

You really feel yourselves to be God's Own Children.

I thwart you in this sense because I do not do that. You notice this and you sense your opportunity. Because I do not make the moral admission, or the moral condemnation, I am further implicated according to the game you establish in my own guilt! The only way for me to 'win' is to agree to lose, and this is how you set up the game. It is really quite transparent.

All this game, all this rehearsal, is carried out in your mind and your imagination. I choose not to intervene because, just as I maintain for myself, I desire to see people as sovereign actors, as free-agents, and as their own moral authority. Make sense? Only you can modify these --- what I consider to be, and what I choose merely to 'suggest' are --- defective modes of seeing, and erroneous modes of argumentation. You are free to accept or to deny. But I will not invade your *sovereign space*. If I convince you, good. If I don't, well that is how it has to be. Our decisions to accept a thing as true or not are the most important, and the most resounding, moral decisions that we can make.

I do not play the game that you desire to see played for a few different reasons. The first is because you are playing not-so-subtle a power-game. You set yourself up, as the Left (generally) sets itself up, as the moral arbiter of everyone else and of the whole world. I suggest to you that this activity, this self-assertion, extends out of Sixties politics (though of course it has deep roots that go back much farther in time). I suggest that it is bound up with disorders of perception and forms of solipsism which are prevalent in our present.

The second is that it works much better for me to allow your game to go forward and to argue, calmly if you will, and from a position of sound reasoning, against the structure of your arguments which, I feel, are emblematic of Thought structure modes that operate in our present. Excuse me for saying this but you appear as a witness against yourself (if what I say is true).

Your main tactic, and again this is common, is to mishear and misstate and misinterpret an assertion and turn your misstatement into a slogan and a mantra. Is this beginning to make sense? This is essentially an unethical activity, really a quite profound one, because there is a kind of lying and malicious distortion that it requires to work.

Notice that you make a few misstatements and then make an appeal to what you imagine as your *audience* by using the third-person form. What this points to, I suggest, is that it is indeed possible to use demagogic techniques to appear to win arguments, or to gain others who will rally to your side, but this is non-intellectual and non-philosophical. One does this when one has no argument to make, or when one can only rely on emotionalism, sensationalism and other levels of distortion to win converts.

I suggest to you that the Left uses these tactics all the time and that they are unethical and also dangerous.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Londoner »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:There are a few things to notice in your approach to argument, Londoner. I will use you as an illustration and I will demonstrate how you, as one who exemplifies Left-Progressive tactics and self-view, structure your arguments....


Once again, readers will note how you in all the verbiage that follows you don't actually deny what I have said about your views.

I don't need to structure an argument against neo-Nazi Holocaust apologists because they have already demonstrated their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

My views are there, in black and white, and can be read by anyone wishing to do do. What I say is very different from what you say I say.

This issue is not mine to resolve and does not require work on my part. It is in fact your issue which requires your own resolution.

Interestingly, you nicely illustrate the basic position of the so-called Black Bloc: they make an assertion about something or someone; they declare that it is evil or bad; then they attack it and justify it through their premise in a self-justifying circle.

Now, the Black Bloc, obviously, needs to become better readers, better understanders of things. Do you see? The responsibility actually falls on them to see differently, to see more fully,, to participate in discussion and not to destroy its possibility. That they can't and that they won't do that is no one else's problem and no one can help them.

How does this correspond to your particular condemnations and the moral game you wish to play (and get others to play with you)? Well, that is evident.

Milo's views you might disagree with, but he is not an Enemy of the Republic. He certainly does take issue with positions that are common and part of PC culture. The Black Bloc, then, makes a terrible mistake of identification. It goes on a rampage as a result of false-perception, false-interpretation, and false-designation. Sound at all familiar?

Similarly, I have said many different things that run contrarily to the common PC views, and yet I have said nothing unethical or even immoral. I have articulated a reasonable, intellectual and philosophical position that can be discussed in a rational and philosophical manner.

You fail to do that and lay the blame on me.
I don't need to structure an argument against neo-Nazi Holocaust apologists because they have already demonstrated their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Well, there you go. You see, this is how the Left essentially functions. Here is how it works: They make an assertion which they are sure is air-tight. On that basis, sure, no argument is required. In fact, no conversation of any sort is required. All that is required is to *smash* the wrong view and the wrong viewer. This is simple A-B-C material Londoner. It becomes a self-fulfilling model.

This is the model under which, largely, the Left-Progressives are assembling. But it is more than just a 'Black Bloc' and is factions within the polity.

Attach whatever trigger term you wish, and there are a group: misogynist, racist, sexist, homophobe, fundamentalist Christian, Nazi, neo-Nazi or what-have-you. Once you have assigned it, attack! No justification required. No excuses need be offered.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Londoner »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:My views are there, in black and white, and can be read by anyone wishing to do do. What I say is very different from what you say I say.
I have referred people to the relevant thread. I have pointed out that you never actually contradict my account of your views. It is important for me to do this, because we are all used to seeing terms like 'Nazi' etc. used as insults - its rare we meet a real one.
Similarly, I have said many different things that run contrarily to the common PC views, and yet I have said nothing unethical or even immoral. I have articulated a reasonable, intellectual and philosophical position that can be discussed in a rational and philosophical manner.
No; as to your being intellectual or reasonable you have loony views on race. And as to morality, when asked if you feel sorry for the victims of the Holocaust, whether you would have saved any if you could, you decline to give a straight reply.

Remember, you are free to contradict me if I've got you wrong. But you don't:
Me: I don't need to structure an argument against neo-Nazi Holocaust apologists because they have already demonstrated their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

Well, there you go. You see, this is how the Left essentially functions. Here is how it works: They make an assertion which they are sure is air-tight. On that basis, sure, no argument is required. In fact, no conversation of any sort is required. All that is required is to *smash* the wrong view and the wrong viewer. This is simple A-B-C material Londoner. It becomes a self-fulfilling model.
More verbiage. If somebody called me a Nazi, or a Holocaust apologist, I would simply reply; 'No I'm not'.

In your case I agree no argument is required; I have said what I think you are - you don't disagree.

Now we have established what sort of a person you are, feel free to give your opinion on demonstrations and other topics. I believe in free speech for all, you are the totalitarian.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Progressivist Protests

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Well, I explained in detail why I refrained and refrain from countering any assessment you make. I wonder if you can ackowledge that a statement had been made, and that it was structured as a response to your *game*? Here it is again in case you read over it too quickly:
GB wrote:You start with the assertion that I must 'contradict' your description of me. What you demand is that, and according to your view of things, I should come out with some sort of statement against that which you claim I am, or do, or say, or believe. You set this up as a moral test, and you set it up in such a way that I am bound to fail. If I agree to do what you demand, I undermine my own argument which is predicated on an understanding of profound complicity between all the players in that confict.

Second, you demand that I violate my own sovereignty as a free-agent and to incriminate myself before you. This is a ritual and a game of debasement and power that you wish to see enacted, and you see yourself, and you establish yourself, as a Judge in a tribunal. Now, I suggest to you that this is largely the position that the Progressive Left takes for itself, and it is essentially a child's game that is being played. This too extends from emotionalized, Sixties politics.
The rest of what you wrote, in the post just above, is more of the same game, but you have now taken a new angle. You ackowledge that the term 'Nazi' is used merely as an insult, and that it is more often than not an empty one, and one used with the intention of excluding someone's ideas, or of applying an ad hominem strategy against them, but of course deviously. This is a positive acknowledgement and it can be applied to the use of all the *trigger terms* as well.

Yet your rhetorical trick is now to imply that you do none of that --- of course not! --- but that in me you confront a 'real Nazi'. It is the same statement, but improved! I said earlier that you'd gotten yourself into a box from which you would not be able to extricate yourself without losing face. This seems to be the result of working from an ad hominem stance and also *rephrasing* what a person actually says into very different statement which are then attributed to your interlocutor. It is a devious game, Londoner, but it is a very very common one.

Now, the damage and the dangerousness can be assessed, and this requires some intellectual work and also some honesty. To back away from the false-assertion which you have boxed yourself into will require appearing (here) with greater authenticity. I suggest --- I merely suggest, Londoner --- that the political Left needs to quickly gain a great deal of humility and honesty and to turn the critical project on their own selves. Is this getting through, even a bit? It is all quite plain really.

When you say that I have 'looney views on race' you veer back into the domain of mere assertion, backed with the same emotionalism as characterizes your entire approach. Again, you attempt to brand me as morally corrupt and this is, at bottom, all that you do and all that you will do. My views about race, or race-realism, do not concur with your own, that is true. But you are not the Ultimate Arbiter of these questions nor of anything at all. I ask: Why has it come to pass that you assume that you are? It is a really much more interesting and provovative question.

Again, this whole undertaking takes place within your own mind and imagination and I make no effort to inhibit your efforts. Only you could make that decision and it would have to be, and should only be, because you have come to see me and what I write and think differently. If you don't then I provide you, and politely so, with an option to hold exactly to whatever idea you have.

To get to a point of seeing my angle of pursuit and my ideas differently will, I think, require a closer reading of what I write. Because I certainly do acknowledge that, for some, any deviation from the *standard line* about the Second War, the origins and cause of it, and aspects of its history, is understood to be a form of evil-in-motion. But I have already made efforts to explain why that is so and need not repeat it here.

You have said what you think I am ... and I do not oppose your assessment. Rather, I turn it around and employ it as a way to gain insight into the mode by which you arrive at assessment; your general argument-structure; and the link between you and the outside world which, as I say, drives all these predicates.
Post Reply