What if conservatives start protests in Democrat-leaning states to pressure them into tougher abortion laws?
Maybe a bit more nuance to the blanket "protests should be held till it gets a result" argument?
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Maybe a bit more nuance to the blanket "protests should be held till it gets a result" argument?
You can support the farmers' rights to protest while being against the government budging to them.
a) yes, absolutely
b) it's a fundamental democratic right to protest, even if you're wrong. Doesn't give you the right to incite violence or be violent but also, violent protest has always accompanied positive change.
If you do get violent though, you can't really be upset if that's met with violence by the authorities, that way it has to be really fecking important to you for you to go there.
On the other hand though, the authorities do not have a right to be violent with peaceful protesters unless they're putting other people in danger by their actions. And yet so often they are violent anyway. The balance of power is rarely with the protesters so I don't really know why they would be the target of your ire.
They can and regularly do. Bizarre.
They should be able to protests and put their leaders in the negotiation table. Even if I don't like it. And that is why counter protests works too. As long as they are not pitting one protest against the other, like the pro-israelian ones
Also, Why the Nazi anti semite tiki torches were not met with any kind of force in the university?
There can be a debate about the correct strategies to enact change, whether some protests go too far, etc. among people who share the same goals. If that were the issue then OK.
What's actually happening is that you have a bunch of people who, for various reasons, support U.S. and Israel's actions, and are slandering these protesters as antisemites or terrorists.
What's actually happening is that you have a bunch of people who, for various reasons, support U.S. and Israel's actions, and are slandering these protesters as antisemites or terrorists.
Will you criticize the government for calling in law enforcement to break up farmer protests? That's kinda the crux here, no?
Protests become uncomfortable. Police show up and break it up. People say "it's supposed to be uncomfortable". Does this count for farmers or do you believe their cause isn't worth that argument?
Stick to the point. Does the "protests must be uncomfortable to enact change" argument hold for the mentioned example or do we throw that argument out for conservatives?
We’re talking about a literal genocide here.
Few points here seeing as you claim you want debate:
- I find it difficult to circle your argument that there were no protests against the Iraq war, which saw some of the biggest protests in history.
-I would like some evidence from you please that the protestors at these universities are calling for Israel's destruction.
-Are you honestly trying to say that the USA has the same relationship with Israel as it does with some of those other countries? So it has the same relationship to Israel as it does to Syria and Assad? To Russia and Putin? To Myanmar? To the Congo? Are Congolese donors threatening funding if American colleges don't act in certain ways?
And what exactly would American college students be protesting in the context of the Ukraine war? To send Russia weapons instead. How about Syria? To arm Assad?
'Becoming uncomfortable' is a very nebulous concept here.
Literally already said they have a right to do that as long as they're not violent or endangering others. Your point is ridiculous, it seems like you don't understand the concept of democracy.
A very good article.
That's kind of what I'm getting at. I think that's the point that we should hammer on consistently.
But a blanket catch-all "keep protesting until you force change" argument doesn't really fly with me because...are all causes worth that argument?
How would you categorize occupying buildings?
Yes, the further you push things, the more you will find that the values you hold can be in tension with each other and you might have to pick one. Some would pick 'the principle of the matter', some would pick 'the cause.' Neither option is right or wrong. I don't think we're anywhere close to this being a real tension though.
So to clarify: you'll be consistent on the "uncomfortable" argument with conservatives occupying buildings to pressure changes on tougher abortion laws? You will not change your mind and say "you know what, I think police is right to break this up and clear the buildings now"?
Just wanna know how consistent you are with this. I'm not angling for a right or wrong answer, I just want to know if you'll be consistent or selective.
Do you know what violence is?
Down goes the 1st Amendment. And for the most predictable reason possible (Israel), and the most predictable route too (IHRA definition).
He has answers to your questions in his speech. When he first talks about the irony of what you mentioned. And then about the evil of Empire and militarism and war. He "connected the dots" in a much broader way.
...
I have some points about your original rant.
1. The US directly involved in funding, arming, and giving diplomatic and judicial cover to the slaughter in Gaza. Among world nations, it's support for Israel is uniquely strong and essential for the Zionist project (and this has always been the case). It isn't doing the same in the other examples - if it is involved, the involvement isn't trumpeted from the rooftops, it isn't supported in a loud bipartisan manner. Indeed, it is very heavily sanctioning Russia and arming Ukraine, it is sanctioning Syria and has armed the opposition, it is sanctioning Myanmar, it supports a (permanent) ceasefire in Sudan, etc. There is no comparison in scale, uniqueness, and importance of US support for Israel vs any of those other countries you mentioned.
If your deal here is that Israel gets treated like any of those countries, every single one of those protestors would go home happy.
2. There were massive protests against the Iraq war. The people and politicians and groups against that war, are largely against this slaughter, and the converse is also true. This extends to big names like Biden, Bush, Hillary, Bernie, then across the media which largely cheer-led and propagandized for the invasion, down to the tiny Communist cults that rallied against invading Iraq and are protesting now. The students protesting now would have been under 2 years old at that time. For whatever it's worth, there were student protests against that war too. Your statement about a lack of Iraq war protests simply does not correspond with reality.
3. It's a bit difficult to get any handle on the leaps of logic in your later paragraphs. The children are parroting Hamas points, which eventually means the slaughter of all Jews. But the children, and as irritating it is to repeat this, many of them Jewish, aren't calling for "the slaughter of all Jews." As a protest, they have specific demands related to divestment and boycott.
Then you say nobody except the Oct 7th terrorists wants "innocent people killed, solider or civilian". There's mountains of direct quotes from the Israeli leadership calling for hunger, extermination, and ethnic cleansing. There's videos of IDF soldiers committing war crimes. There's an ongoing discovery of mass graves and the slaughter of hospital patients. There are multiple reports (and have been for decades) of various tortures. Your statement here simply does not correspond with reality.
I have some questions for you -
1. Are Palestinians inherently prone to violence and irrationality?
2. Have they proven since the 30s or 40s, that they "love their children less than they hate ours"?
3. Are they a nationality, or has a conspiracy by external Arab leadership given them that mistaken impression?
He has answers to your questions in his speech. When he first talks about the irony of what you mentioned. And then about the evil of Empire and militarism and war. He "connected the dots" in a much broader way.
...
I have some points about your original rant.
1. The US directly involved in funding, arming, and giving diplomatic and judicial cover to the slaughter in Gaza. Among world nations, it's support for Israel is uniquely strong and essential for the Zionist project (and this has always been the case). It isn't doing the same in the other examples - if it is involved, the involvement isn't trumpeted from the rooftops, it isn't supported in a loud bipartisan manner. Indeed, it is very heavily sanctioning Russia and arming Ukraine, it is sanctioning Syria and has armed the opposition, it is sanctioning Myanmar, it supports a (permanent) ceasefire in Sudan, etc. There is no comparison in scale, uniqueness, and importance of US support for Israel vs any of those other countries you mentioned.
If your deal here is that Israel gets treated like any of those countries, every single one of those protestors would go home happy.
2. There were massive protests against the Iraq war. The people and politicians and groups against that war, are largely against this slaughter, and the converse is also true. This extends to big names like Biden, Bush, Hillary, Bernie, then across the media which largely cheer-led and propagandized for the invasion, down to the tiny Communist cults that rallied against invading Iraq and are protesting now. The students protesting now would have been under 2 years old at that time. For whatever it's worth, there were student protests against that war too. Your statement about a lack of Iraq war protests simply does not correspond with reality.
3. It's a bit difficult to get any handle on the leaps of logic in your later paragraphs. The children are parroting Hamas points, which eventually means the slaughter of all Jews. But the children, and as irritating it is to repeat this, many of them Jewish, aren't calling for "the slaughter of all Jews." As a protest, they have specific demands related to divestment and boycott.
Then you say nobody except the Oct 7th terrorists wants "innocent people killed, solider or civilian". There's mountains of direct quotes from the Israeli leadership calling for hunger, extermination, and ethnic cleansing. There's videos of IDF soldiers committing war crimes. There's an ongoing discovery of mass graves and the slaughter of hospital patients. There are multiple reports (and have been for decades) of various tortures. Your statement here simply does not correspond with reality.
I have some questions for you -
1. Are Palestinians inherently prone to violence and irrationality?
2. Have they proven since the 30s or 40s, that they "love their children less than they hate ours"?
3. Are they a nationality, or has a conspiracy by external Arab leadership given them that mistaken impression?
Breaking up protesters doing something illegal but non-violent is not the same as attacking them, how is this hard?
What funding terrorism looks like in broad daylight.
I am as consistent as Voltaire
Not sure what you're getting at. That is not what I'm talking about at all. My argument is not about "how much force should police use".
My point of discussion is about when it's fine to call in police. When protesters occupy a building, is it then OK to call in police? Does the "protests must be uncomfortable" argument stop there?
IMO is very difficult to rate. If the protestors would occupy my room, I would call the police? of course. But it is a facetious (self one) argument. There are certain areas, institutions and infrastructures that protests had been held always there. And one of the most common if not the most, are universities. Sometimes common sense should prevail and Columbia university didn't exercised it from the beginning and that is why it snowballed.
Then, protestors needs to exercise common sense and if they don't the police should be called. The police should exercise common sense. And arresting indiscriminately and placing snipers in rooftops is not common sense
Occupying buildings has always happened in this kind of protest, and the response has never been what happened yesterday.
My theory is that what brought them over the edge was changing that hall to the name of the girl who was murdered by Biden and Israel.
You have a problem with students protesting genocide. Everything after that is just, seemingly, semantic-based argumentation. What is your problem with it?
Firstly, I think there's great value in being selective. The US is selective about who gets to follow what laws, and is doing very well for itself in the world! I think there's a lot to learn from people like Modi and Netanyahu who understand power and use it.
Second, we're not dealing with hypotheticals here. For your earlier post: anti-abortion activists line the entrances to abortion clinics and show disturbing images and say hurtful things to those going in. That has been repeatedly ruled to be valid within the 1st amendment.
I think "the occupation of buildings" is a very weird category to use. The Bolsheviks occupied the Provisional Govt building, 1968 Columbia protestors occupied the same building today's protestors did, the Chilean military occupied the presidential palace, the Jan 6th mob occupied Congress, many anarchists occupy empty homes, the IDF occupied Al-Shifa hospital. In my previous university, students occupied an admin building after a higher-up allegedly shouted a racial slur at a parking attendant (to get him to resign). These were all very different events with different levels of violence and different aims. I don't think drawing up a blanket "occupying buildings" policy makes any sense whatsoever.
In this particular case, students occupying a university building to make demands of the university is the mildest "occupation" possible, especially in the context of the university locking campus down and forcing professors out of their offices and classrooms. I don't see why cops, especially armed counter-terrorism cops, are needed anywhere near it.
His problem is obvious, it does not need a rocket scientist to know what his problem is. He just cant say it out loud, but I am amazed that you guys are still arguing with him.
These student protests are so beautiful to see. A large group of young people willing to take real risks, to make real sacrifice for what they believe is right.
And doing so in the face of a rabidly violent political class and a gutless, servile media class, both complicit in some of the most harrowing, ongoing atrocities we've ever seen.
These brave young kids makes you stop and think that perhaps the United States isn't the complete shithole its decrepit leadership wish it were.
The establishment has threatened them, smeared them, attacked them with violence, but the old tricks don't seem to be working quite like they used to,
and remember, these demented old leaders will be rotting corpses soon enough, the youth might yet be able to salvage something.
And doing so in the face of a rabidly violent political class and a gutless, servile media class, both complicit in some of the most harrowing, ongoing atrocities we've ever seen.
These brave young kids makes you stop and think that perhaps the United States isn't the complete shithole its decrepit leadership wish it were.
The establishment has threatened them, smeared them, attacked them with violence, but the old tricks don't seem to be working quite like they used to,
and remember, these demented old leaders will be rotting corpses soon enough, the youth might yet be able to salvage something.
Conservatives would be chased out of the state.
Easier said than done. Have you seen what they did in Charlottesville, years before Virginia voted for a Republican governor?
This youth will not rule US. The youth that will rule US is being groomed by the decrepit people to be the next old decrepit generation
And where were the riot police? and we are talking about blatant racist and anti semitist chants there, not like most of the pro-palestine protests in the universities now
is the blatant double standards that sucks. Always favouring the same
Anything you can doom I can doom better, but right now I'm choosing to bask in this little iota of hope that these students have provided. Let my cold heart have this little warmth.
These lies can't be allowed to proliferate unabated:
Exciting! Speech censorship within a 1st amendment context.
.@2cents I'm really really really struggling to understand Israel as a US client state. I can't think of another client where their hold on American domestic politics, down to tenured university professors and city council races, and up to the president and his choice of running mate, is so absolute.
Anyway they now have the legal tools to Corbyn-out whoever tries to follow Bernie.
Last edited:
Oh, I commend this students all you want. In this specific matter they might influence a bit (or not) but that will not translate in anything meaningful on the future US leadership. Or any country for that matter. Politics sucks, more than ever
There are countless examples thoughout history of disruptive protest of a similar style, that are entirely unrelated to the current protests.
There are also many examples of protest in recent history that are directly related to the current protests.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/co...dents-has-long-history-occupation-2024-04-30/direct historical context said:
Edit: I just want to point out that I learnt about this building's history three days ago. I post it as a little heads up about something relevant that I learned and can share. This is not to try and embarrass anyone for not knowing something I didn't know either.
Last edited:
Won't somebody please think of the graduation ceremonies!
I think there’s always been a type of person who’s just against protests in general. Someone who feels uneasy/uncomfortable with seeing the current social rules even mildly disrupted. Basically a classic reactionary.
I’m guessing when Jesus was cleansing the temple there’s was a dude in the corner complaining about how it’s disrespectful to the rules of brunch. Without doubt there was Victorian era centrist dads bemoaning the tactics of the suffragettes, etc.
There’s enough evidence throughout history to show the student protesters today are clearly on the correct side of history. Anyone complaining about them is just a annoying nerd.
I think there’s always been a type of person who’s just against protests in general. Someone who feels uneasy/uncomfortable with seeing the current social rules even mildly disrupted. Basically a classic reactionary.
I’m guessing when Jesus was cleansing the temple there’s was a dude in the corner complaining about how it’s disrespectful to the rules of brunch. Without doubt there was Victorian era centrist dads bemoaning the tactics of the suffragettes, etc.
There’s enough evidence throughout history to show the student protesters today are clearly on the correct side of history. Anyone complaining about them is just a annoying nerd.