4 ms·

I don't know what they call themselves but look at Mizzou, Berkley, and Evergreen.

Apocryphon 9y ago
Student activism is nothing new. Do protesters even cause any effects off campus? Berkeley's protest culture has been long studied by many scholars.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Activism is nothing new, the amount of violence certainly is. That's what makes them uniquely scary - violent authoritarianism has a higher body count than any other ideology. They cause effects off campus - look at the reactionary right and all the BDS stuff they try to push.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    Can any of the recent protest violence that's taken place be comparable to the events in 1968? Today's movements are vocal but still a pale shadow of those in the '60s. Whatever you can say about the U.S. branch of the Antifa, they're not nearly as violent as the Weathermen Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army, etc. Labelling the modern movements as uniquely scary requires a selective memory of history.
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      There's been a pattern of less and less violence in America - until recently that is. Anything that threatens to disrupt the pattern is cause for concern, and the authoritarian leftists seem locked in a mutual radicalization with the alt-right, it's not clear what could moderate the situation beyond more effective liberal governance.
      - Apocryphon 9y ago
        What's the bodycount from the collective number of demonstrations in the last, say, five years? Again, these events seem isolated to protests, many specific to universities. What is "less and less violence" measuring? As a society, homicides are going down, and incidents of civil protest are not disturbing that pattern. You might as well investigate spree shooter attacks, given that those incidents seem to be increasing as well, in casualties if not frequency.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Activism is nothing new, the amount of violence certainly is. No, it's not. > That's what makes them uniquely scary - violent authoritarianism has a higher body count than any other ideology. Violent authoritarianism isn't really an ideology, it's more a mechanism that's been deployed in pursuit of radically different ideologies. > look at the reactionary right and all the BDS stuff they try to push. BDS usually refers to the mostly left wing “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (against Israel) movement, which has nothing to do with the reactionary right.
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      Authoritarian violence is absolutely an ideology - every group that's ever employed it has been a group with a political utopia. And every group that's articulated a political utopia has employed violence. Arguing that they're separate requires the addition of another dimension that doesn't add information. Murderous communism and murderous fascism are both murderous and utopistic, adding the color commentary of left wing / right wing ideals doesn't improve the model. >BDS usually refers to the mostly left wing “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (against Israel) movement, which has nothing to do with the reactionary right. I could have phrased that better, I intended to use BDS as an example of the activism spilling out of campuses.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Authoritarian violence is absolutely an ideology - every group that's ever employed it has been a group with a political utopia. The “every group...” part wouldn't support the conclusion that it is an ideology rather than mechanism adopted in support of varying and widely divergent ideologies if it were true, and it's also not true, as there are plenty of violent authoritarian regimes in history (and even today) that were not driven by any vision of a “political utopia”. > And every group that's articulated a political utopia has employed violence. That's also not true, though every group that has successfully established a government (whether or not they had a utopian vision) has employed violence. OTOH, that also doesn't support your claim. In fact, given that “violent authoritarianism” and merely employing violence at some point are world's apart, it's not even germane to the point, even if it was true.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    Violence? Those people may reject speakers and barricade pathways but they don't beat someone close to death with 2x4s and then blame them for starting it.[1] Left-wing movements that you are drawing a false equivalence to with right-wing authoritarians do not advocate for genocide of entire sections of the population. You can cherry-pick a couple people who say "white people should die" but they aren't taken seriously by anyone. Meanwhile you have whole rallies conducted by right-wing authoritarians who are literally calling for the elimination of Jews in the streets. [1] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/black-man-attacked-charlottesville-rally-charged-171013065312451.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/black-man-attacked-cha...

Student activism is nothing new. Do protesters even cause any effects off campus? Berkeley's protest culture has been long studied by many scholars.

alexanderstears 9y ago
Activism is nothing new, the amount of violence certainly is. That's what makes them uniquely scary - violent authoritarianism has a higher body count than any other ideology. They cause effects off campus - look at the reactionary right and all the BDS stuff they try to push.
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  Can any of the recent protest violence that's taken place be comparable to the events in 1968? Today's movements are vocal but still a pale shadow of those in the '60s. Whatever you can say about the U.S. branch of the Antifa, they're not nearly as violent as the Weathermen Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army, etc. Labelling the modern movements as uniquely scary requires a selective memory of history.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    There's been a pattern of less and less violence in America - until recently that is. Anything that threatens to disrupt the pattern is cause for concern, and the authoritarian leftists seem locked in a mutual radicalization with the alt-right, it's not clear what could moderate the situation beyond more effective liberal governance.
    - Apocryphon 9y ago
      What's the bodycount from the collective number of demonstrations in the last, say, five years? Again, these events seem isolated to protests, many specific to universities. What is "less and less violence" measuring? As a society, homicides are going down, and incidents of civil protest are not disturbing that pattern. You might as well investigate spree shooter attacks, given that those incidents seem to be increasing as well, in casualties if not frequency.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Activism is nothing new, the amount of violence certainly is. No, it's not. > That's what makes them uniquely scary - violent authoritarianism has a higher body count than any other ideology. Violent authoritarianism isn't really an ideology, it's more a mechanism that's been deployed in pursuit of radically different ideologies. > look at the reactionary right and all the BDS stuff they try to push. BDS usually refers to the mostly left wing “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (against Israel) movement, which has nothing to do with the reactionary right.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    Authoritarian violence is absolutely an ideology - every group that's ever employed it has been a group with a political utopia. And every group that's articulated a political utopia has employed violence. Arguing that they're separate requires the addition of another dimension that doesn't add information. Murderous communism and murderous fascism are both murderous and utopistic, adding the color commentary of left wing / right wing ideals doesn't improve the model. >BDS usually refers to the mostly left wing “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (against Israel) movement, which has nothing to do with the reactionary right. I could have phrased that better, I intended to use BDS as an example of the activism spilling out of campuses.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Authoritarian violence is absolutely an ideology - every group that's ever employed it has been a group with a political utopia. The “every group...” part wouldn't support the conclusion that it is an ideology rather than mechanism adopted in support of varying and widely divergent ideologies if it were true, and it's also not true, as there are plenty of violent authoritarian regimes in history (and even today) that were not driven by any vision of a “political utopia”. > And every group that's articulated a political utopia has employed violence. That's also not true, though every group that has successfully established a government (whether or not they had a utopian vision) has employed violence. OTOH, that also doesn't support your claim. In fact, given that “violent authoritarianism” and merely employing violence at some point are world's apart, it's not even germane to the point, even if it was true.
- uoaei 9y ago
  Violence? Those people may reject speakers and barricade pathways but they don't beat someone close to death with 2x4s and then blame them for starting it.[1] Left-wing movements that you are drawing a false equivalence to with right-wing authoritarians do not advocate for genocide of entire sections of the population. You can cherry-pick a couple people who say "white people should die" but they aren't taken seriously by anyone. Meanwhile you have whole rallies conducted by right-wing authoritarians who are literally calling for the elimination of Jews in the streets. [1] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/black-man-attacked-charlottesville-rally-charged-171013065312451.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/black-man-attacked-cha...