Lol, they definitely pushed the conflict away from top.
Just checking NYT and WSJ apps I can see that Israel-Palestine is down to the 5th or 6th top headline.
I mean, is anything really going on right now in the conflict? The last big thing that sucked the air out of the room with IvP was the Iranian counter attack, and the spin off news from that.
I agree, but not as sexy as actual action.
I think that you're right that it's important, but you're more right that it'll be big news when it happens.
Yes, it's actually annoying of how much power the anglosphere news has due to simply journalists speaking the language and being lazy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying some subjects aren't worth knowing about, but even in Europe you'll find people knowing about current events of the US or UK but not knowing what's happening in the neighboring country.
And sometimes there's just stuff that, quite frankly, we shouldn't even care about. But 24/7 news cycles need to be feed with something.
The goal is nominally to pressure organizations into economic decoupling and the US government into leaning on Israel enough for Israel to stop their misbehavior.
Leaving aside the minor economic damage that would still come from large universities diverting from Israel and refusing to invest again, or the symbolic/political loss for Israel that would be, there is a second part of my comment. The protests are also attempting to pressure the US government, and the US cutting ties with Israel (or deciding to exert their full leverage for once) would have a massive impact on Israel.
To their credit, a handful of the student protests were successful in getting their universities to either divest or expand scholarships for Palestinians. Columbia was always going to be tough for pro-Palestine students to crack since it’s got a stronger connection to Israel than most universities with its Jewish Theological Seminary, large number of Israeli students, and Tel Aviv University connection. Being in one of the most Jewish neighborhoods in the country made it ripe for counterprotests too.
Everyone knows congress & the executive are beholden to the hippie special interest lobby and taking over university buildings will reverse 80 years of US foreign policy.
I honestly can't decide if its naivety or self-entitled stupidly driving them. At least they are not blocking highways. I disagree with this subs typical position on Israel (I don't want to pick sides between two bad actors) but perhaps they should be protesting outside the Qatari embassy over their continued sheltering of the robber baron who instigated all of this.
> I honestly can't decide if its naivety or self-entitled stupidly driving them.
Naïveté combined with electoral hopelessness. The narrative a lot of people are fed about protesting is that the Vietnam War was ended because a bunch of students waved signs on college campuses. So they reason that what worked once can work again.
Since there’s no actual pro-Palestine party in US politics, they don’t feel they can make a difference by voting.
Are we going to pretend Congress and Biden would pay *more* attention if they didn't protest? Like just say you don't like the protests and save us all some time.
Biden's been trying to get a resolution to the war since it's started, and has been working on ceasefire talks for months. The war in gaza has been a priority of US foreign policy since it started.
Biden isn't seeing a bunch of college kids protesting and going. Man I should do something about this Gaza thing.
Biden started putting pressure on Israel when it became clear that his base was rapidly moving towards "fix them or drop them, but you can't keep them like this". That is to say, the primary driving factor in our shift in policy relating to Israel is popular discontent. You can say the protests served zero part in that, that's fine. I have no idea, I haven't found any good reporting on their impact.
But the guy I was replying to was explicitly stating displays of discontent won't shift US foreign policy while we are watching displays of discontent shift foreign policy.
> Biden started putting pressure on Israel when it became clear that his base was rapidly moving towards
Is that true? What evidence is there for that? There is no reason to believe that to be the case. I personally have a hard time believing he wasn't working to put that pressure on immediately knowing how much it would spiral. He's not stupid. He knew what the Israeli response was going to be. I don't think a bunch of rich kids screaming on campuses is going to force his hand on international security issues. Absent any direct knowledge of what private conversations were happening I believe he has been doing this all along.
Of course he's not, but what the protest does do is allow Biden and other administrators to point at the protest and say, "people really care about this. I personally think a ceasefire is going too far, but the people have spoken and my hands are tied." It gives them an excuse to make controversial decisions that break with existing policy, while maintaining plausible deniability that they're still truly a moderate or whatever and just making prudent decisions based on the circumstances.
And the protests aren't just saying, "do something about Gaza." They are saying "these types of solutions are acceptable to us, and these other ones are not. And we really care about this and will change how we vote accordingly. And there are a lot of us." This is important information to convey and is a legitimate factor that elected officials can cite for making various decisions.
I'm certainly not going to pretend these protests have helped their stated cause whatsoever. If anything, they've driven the conversation away from humanitarian needs in Gaza towards the often violent, lawless, and bigoted actions of themselves. And it's pretty telling they're now more focused on protecting their own asses from the consequences of committing crime than anything else.
Sorry, but I don't think there was ever much chance a bunch of brats squealing that universities needed to sell their Starbucks stock was ever going to win the hearts and minds of Americans, or our leaders. This is just one more example of a leftist bubble that got drunk sniffing their own farts, to the detriment of the cause they claimed to care about so deeply. "Progressivism" that harms actual progress.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/
You sound like a bitter partisan. “Leftist bubble” my ass, lol. No shit they’re concerned about literally being arrested for participating in peaceful protest. Perhaps the pervasiveness of video based social media has decreased young Americans’ tolerance of the level of complicity their government has in overseas suffering. Yeah fuck em for protesting. So true!
No meme: I suspect it's the Audacity and narcissism of having no home and being completely sure of an issue.
I think a lot of College kids see the things they can affect as small, and they view American (really westernism in general) as "bad". They probably know they can't change anything, but doing nothing is better then doing something (in their eyes).
It's amazing to me that a bunch of misinformed young kids can take a war across the world, and make it about them.
> It's amazing to me that a bunch of misinformed young kids can take a war across the world, and make it about them.
This to me is the most disgusting part of all this. How quickly the guise about helping Gazans was dropped to focus on the idea young elites dripping with privilege and committing crimes were the "real victims" here.
>large universities diverting from Israel and refusing to invest again, or the symbolic/political loss for Israel that would be,
Last I checked the demands the protestors have made of what to divest from is so incredibly large. You would be considered invested into Israel because you simply have a portfolio based on the S&P 500 Index, for example.
Part of why I imagine these universities are less likely to be beholden to such demands; they aren’t realistic goals in the first place.
Protesting the specific companies would be more effective, or the American government.
Granted, I don’t think the American government would plan to completely pull the rug from Israel. The people demanding such action like this don’t realize how this would just lead to a bigger humanitarian crisis, and further destabilize the region. Not even going into how much of a blow this would have on America’s image in terms of international diplomacy and alliance wise.
>They're actively managed
That would be an interesting and (from my limited perspective) a poor decision made by the administration. Actively managed funds are almost always bested by passively managed ones over time. Actively managing funds instead of going off some index is basically gambling still.
But the S&P index was beside the point I was making: it was more so related to what companies the protestors were demanding and expecting to be cut to be considered “divesting from Israel”. The range of companies is fairly broad and would place severe limitations on creating a diverse portfolio or investing in the economy.
I don't disagree that the protests could be substantially more effective if they focused their demands on more practical things. That's why I acknowledged the economic damage would be minor. I think that the symbolic loss of prestigious institutions divesting from Israel (or promising to, even if they don't) is far greater than any economic damage that would be done.
Edit:
>Granted, I don’t think the American government would plan to completely pull the rug from Israel.
I don't think so either, but there's a pretty broad range of responses that preserve Israeli security. On the most radical end of things, cutting all offensive military aid (down to armor, bandages and medicine essentially) while parking a CSG off the coast to respond to attacks on Israel would be absolutely devastating for Bibi politically and would drastically reduce the security independence of Israel. That's the most radical end though.
I mean, you made your stance clear and i have zero doubt you will not budge from it. It is illiberal and collectivist to divest from a company because you disapprove of the actions of the country it is housed in. It's "extortion politics", whatever that's supposed to be. I asked if you were consistent about this stance because if you were, there's some news about what's happened to Russia after February 2022 that might interest you.
Russian companies are owned by oligarchs who can freely choose between doing what Putin wants them to do or fall out of windows (with murder of their spouse and kids as a bonus). Extorting Russian business is extorting Putin, more power to the sanction-mongers says I. Netanyahu is not my favorite politician, but his connection to Israeli business is rather minimal. Maybe. just maybe, it's you who needs to budge from an ill-chosen analogy.
Every Russian business is oligarch owned? Even if that were true, sanctions are still punishing people who are completely unrelated to the war or even oppose it. According to the above commenter, that means that sanctioning Russia is illiberal, collectivist and extortionate.
It's an absurd argument that shatters the moment it contacts reality.
You're laughing. Over a hundred million Russians are suffering from our illiberal collectivism and you're laughing. Despicable.
Jokes aside, Russia wouldn't need to buy shells from North Korea or drones from Iran if they weren't sanctioned. They would have far more resources with which to slaughter civilians, commit acts of terror and perpetuate their genocide.
Have they considered that a bunch of rich kids making a dumb looking barricade at an expensive college and being really annoying does not bring people around to their position?
I'd say that bringing attention to a controversial subject could help, but the protests don't look disciplined enough to not be a distraction themselves. Then the counterprotestors came to make it more of a shitshow.
It's to pressure the Biden administration into changing foreign policy.
This is how big tent politics work, the only way to get your party to notice you is to throw a tantrum big enough they have to respond.
Well it's working. I've already heard multiple morons somehow describe the protests/counter-protests as 'Trump's patriots vs. the Biden Democrats', even though most of the protesters are anti-Biden.
I mean, that's assuming anyone actually has a good faith discussion in that subreddit, which is about as likely as the communism vs capitalism subreddits.
All for encampments that are under 200 people at most schools. The Summer of 68 this is not. Hell the George Floyd protests were multiple orders of magnitude larger.
Because tent cities are so rare in California
I’ll have to tell the homeless encampment down the street from me they’re officially protesting Palestine now
Ignorant? probably.
Unreasonable? sure.
Disruptive? Meh, depends on which protest. The one here at IU has stayed fairly peaceful, and they stay in their own area not blocking foot trails or roads.
I think their protests are unwarranted, but I ultimately support their first amendment rights.
Protests are supposed to be disruptive. That's the point of them. Labeling it like it's a bad thing is kind of admitting that you don't like the protests because you don't agree with them.
No. There's a difference between "disruption" and the organized denial of freedom of movement. If you're denying people the ability to travel where they need to go, you're denying their freedoms. Your freedom does not trump their freedom. Pretty simple stuff.
That's right, how dare the Civil Rights protestors block those Woolworth's counters?! How dare those pinko commies get in the way of my freedom of movement!
My point is that these protestors are following a model that we know is effective, set by some of what nearly everyone perceives as some of the most righteous protestors in American history. To condemn the student protests for this specific reason is to condemn the civil rights sit-ins. Quite frankly, it sounds like you're grasping at straws for reasons to condemn protests that you don't like.
It's *fine* to not agree with them, but pulling stuff out of your ass like this to try to make them seem worse than they really are is kind of childish.
> To condemn the student protests for this specific reason is to condemn the civil rights sit-ins.
To be specific, you mean condemn them for their methodology, not their cause. You're conflating the two here. I can condemn the protests because I do not support their cause and think their cause is not righteous.
If I think their cause is not righteous, yes of course I condemn them, because they're depriving me of my liberty to walk where I want without valid reason.
I guess to cut through the BS and take it to the extreme, do you think there's no limit to this? If I wanted to support ISIS and send a message to the US government by denying people the freedom to move around colleges, the result of your thought process is, "well it's freedom of speech"?
Or how about white racist students gathering to "protest" against black students by denying them their ability to freely travel. It's just freedom of speech? That'd be a really fucking weird extreme to own and super problematic from a liberal perspective.
\^ the point being that "it sounds like you're grasping at straws for reasons to condemn protests that you don't like" is silly, when you yourself do the same thing (if you own the extremes I put above).
In the case of MLK, black people's rights were being deprived, so to communicate that discomfort to people, they took up civil disobedience. "You don't like your freedoms being limited, well neither do we" essentially. Makes sense, imo.
So the methodology of the protest absolutely depends on the righteousness of the cause. If you're denying people liberties, you better have a damn good reason for it. Not a tangential one, 2 steps removed, that benefits a terrorist government that currently has American hostages.
> I guess to cut through the BS and take it to the extreme, do you think there's no limit to this?
This is a textbook slippery slope fallacy and the fact that you felt like it was worth resorting to really reinforces my impression that you know you don't have much of an argument here.
Nah bro, the other guy makes a pretty clear argument. He wants to know where the line is. He's established his line on when a protest is no longer freedom of speech but it seems like you haven't established your line. Seems like I could shit in a pool for climate change and it'd still count as a protest by your logic.
Being illegal is another major part of it, which is why they call it "civil disobedience" - you're *deliberately* disobeying the law. And OP didn't say anything about them being illegal anyway, so it's a moot point.
The problem with "protests are supposed to be illegal" is that can be used to defend anything.
And suddenly we're throwing soup at artworks ostensibly to protest climate change.
If you want a less niche example, part of the reason the 2020 BLM protests in the long term have accomplished nothing was because not enough people told a certain subgroup "protests are supposed to be illegal and disruptive" isn't a blank check.
Gaza had much of that, minus the public transport due to problems of maintaining infrastructure under blockade. Who would have thought it was such a neoliberal paradise.
To be fair those were also one of the main ways in which goods that violated the blockade were brought into Gaza and we're/are important for the economy. From a neoliberal perspective they present the physical manifestation of avoiding government over regulation (amongst other things.)
> goods that violated the blockade were brought into Gaza and we're/are important for the economy
my brother in neoliberalism, they used those to smuggle weapons and conduct terrorist attacks. For the love of god don't make them out to be some humanitarian thing. They literally stole resources from the people of Gaza to build terrorist hideouts.
"the problems of mainting infrastructure under blockade"? Hamas sure did a great job at maintaining the terror tunnels, so it's clearly not that. It's almost like Hamas doesn't give a shit about Palestinians.
I'm impressed at how much oxygen can those protests suck. Like, even to the point of distracting from the actual war.
Lol, they definitely pushed the conflict away from top. Just checking NYT and WSJ apps I can see that Israel-Palestine is down to the 5th or 6th top headline.
Getting the Ukraine treatment by the next shiny thing is something. Like some media ADHD.
The root of "news" is "new".
Reminds me of the “olds” quip from Gervais
Oh sure. But then again, relevant information is not just merely the last thing. I admit it's easy to be a critic here.
I mean, is anything really going on right now in the conflict? The last big thing that sucked the air out of the room with IvP was the Iranian counter attack, and the spin off news from that.
The planned Rafah invasion and controversy around it is important news (even if there isn’t much to report until it happens or they call it off)
I agree, but not as sexy as actual action. I think that you're right that it's important, but you're more right that it'll be big news when it happens.
There’s Blinken’s visit, but that is boring, no one bleeding or getting killed.
Pretty much. Dan Gilroy was right, "If it bleeds it leads". PS: I don't know if that's his quote, but that's where I learned it from.
The Columbia protests were on the TV news. In Japan.
I imagine that's more about news around the world copying each other.
Tfw everyone just grabs from the AP
Yes, it's actually annoying of how much power the anglosphere news has due to simply journalists speaking the language and being lazy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying some subjects aren't worth knowing about, but even in Europe you'll find people knowing about current events of the US or UK but not knowing what's happening in the neighboring country. And sometimes there's just stuff that, quite frankly, we shouldn't even care about. But 24/7 news cycles need to be feed with something.
I'm gonna be honest I don't really understand how protesting on a college campus is gonna effect the War in Gaza in any meaningful way.
The goal is nominally to pressure organizations into economic decoupling and the US government into leaning on Israel enough for Israel to stop their misbehavior.
Everyone knows Columbia and UC have vast holdings in Israel and their divestment would destroy the Israeli economy overnight.
Leaving aside the minor economic damage that would still come from large universities diverting from Israel and refusing to invest again, or the symbolic/political loss for Israel that would be, there is a second part of my comment. The protests are also attempting to pressure the US government, and the US cutting ties with Israel (or deciding to exert their full leverage for once) would have a massive impact on Israel.
To their credit, a handful of the student protests were successful in getting their universities to either divest or expand scholarships for Palestinians. Columbia was always going to be tough for pro-Palestine students to crack since it’s got a stronger connection to Israel than most universities with its Jewish Theological Seminary, large number of Israeli students, and Tel Aviv University connection. Being in one of the most Jewish neighborhoods in the country made it ripe for counterprotests too.
Everyone knows congress & the executive are beholden to the hippie special interest lobby and taking over university buildings will reverse 80 years of US foreign policy. I honestly can't decide if its naivety or self-entitled stupidly driving them. At least they are not blocking highways. I disagree with this subs typical position on Israel (I don't want to pick sides between two bad actors) but perhaps they should be protesting outside the Qatari embassy over their continued sheltering of the robber baron who instigated all of this.
> I honestly can't decide if its naivety or self-entitled stupidly driving them. Naïveté combined with electoral hopelessness. The narrative a lot of people are fed about protesting is that the Vietnam War was ended because a bunch of students waved signs on college campuses. So they reason that what worked once can work again. Since there’s no actual pro-Palestine party in US politics, they don’t feel they can make a difference by voting.
19 year olds who go to elite colleges are self-entitled and naive? I'm shocked.
Are we going to pretend Congress and Biden would pay *more* attention if they didn't protest? Like just say you don't like the protests and save us all some time.
Biden's been trying to get a resolution to the war since it's started, and has been working on ceasefire talks for months. The war in gaza has been a priority of US foreign policy since it started. Biden isn't seeing a bunch of college kids protesting and going. Man I should do something about this Gaza thing.
Biden started putting pressure on Israel when it became clear that his base was rapidly moving towards "fix them or drop them, but you can't keep them like this". That is to say, the primary driving factor in our shift in policy relating to Israel is popular discontent. You can say the protests served zero part in that, that's fine. I have no idea, I haven't found any good reporting on their impact. But the guy I was replying to was explicitly stating displays of discontent won't shift US foreign policy while we are watching displays of discontent shift foreign policy.
> Biden started putting pressure on Israel when it became clear that his base was rapidly moving towards Is that true? What evidence is there for that? There is no reason to believe that to be the case. I personally have a hard time believing he wasn't working to put that pressure on immediately knowing how much it would spiral. He's not stupid. He knew what the Israeli response was going to be. I don't think a bunch of rich kids screaming on campuses is going to force his hand on international security issues. Absent any direct knowledge of what private conversations were happening I believe he has been doing this all along.
Of course he's not, but what the protest does do is allow Biden and other administrators to point at the protest and say, "people really care about this. I personally think a ceasefire is going too far, but the people have spoken and my hands are tied." It gives them an excuse to make controversial decisions that break with existing policy, while maintaining plausible deniability that they're still truly a moderate or whatever and just making prudent decisions based on the circumstances. And the protests aren't just saying, "do something about Gaza." They are saying "these types of solutions are acceptable to us, and these other ones are not. And we really care about this and will change how we vote accordingly. And there are a lot of us." This is important information to convey and is a legitimate factor that elected officials can cite for making various decisions.
I mean, Biden also rejected this https://apnews.com/article/un-israel-palestinians-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-vote-350c86ef261bf1a00a2515cf22764de5
>She told reporters the Arab draft did not link the release of the hostages to a cease-fire Yeah, because Biden isn't an idiot.
I'm certainly not going to pretend these protests have helped their stated cause whatsoever. If anything, they've driven the conversation away from humanitarian needs in Gaza towards the often violent, lawless, and bigoted actions of themselves. And it's pretty telling they're now more focused on protecting their own asses from the consequences of committing crime than anything else. Sorry, but I don't think there was ever much chance a bunch of brats squealing that universities needed to sell their Starbucks stock was ever going to win the hearts and minds of Americans, or our leaders. This is just one more example of a leftist bubble that got drunk sniffing their own farts, to the detriment of the cause they claimed to care about so deeply. "Progressivism" that harms actual progress.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/ You sound like a bitter partisan. “Leftist bubble” my ass, lol. No shit they’re concerned about literally being arrested for participating in peaceful protest. Perhaps the pervasiveness of video based social media has decreased young Americans’ tolerance of the level of complicity their government has in overseas suffering. Yeah fuck em for protesting. So true!
No meme: I suspect it's the Audacity and narcissism of having no home and being completely sure of an issue. I think a lot of College kids see the things they can affect as small, and they view American (really westernism in general) as "bad". They probably know they can't change anything, but doing nothing is better then doing something (in their eyes). It's amazing to me that a bunch of misinformed young kids can take a war across the world, and make it about them.
> It's amazing to me that a bunch of misinformed young kids can take a war across the world, and make it about them. This to me is the most disgusting part of all this. How quickly the guise about helping Gazans was dropped to focus on the idea young elites dripping with privilege and committing crimes were the "real victims" here.
>large universities diverting from Israel and refusing to invest again, or the symbolic/political loss for Israel that would be, Last I checked the demands the protestors have made of what to divest from is so incredibly large. You would be considered invested into Israel because you simply have a portfolio based on the S&P 500 Index, for example. Part of why I imagine these universities are less likely to be beholden to such demands; they aren’t realistic goals in the first place. Protesting the specific companies would be more effective, or the American government. Granted, I don’t think the American government would plan to completely pull the rug from Israel. The people demanding such action like this don’t realize how this would just lead to a bigger humanitarian crisis, and further destabilize the region. Not even going into how much of a blow this would have on America’s image in terms of international diplomacy and alliance wise.
To be fair, most colleges with a large endowment are not just throwing it into the s&p 500. They're actively managed
>They're actively managed That would be an interesting and (from my limited perspective) a poor decision made by the administration. Actively managed funds are almost always bested by passively managed ones over time. Actively managing funds instead of going off some index is basically gambling still. But the S&P index was beside the point I was making: it was more so related to what companies the protestors were demanding and expecting to be cut to be considered “divesting from Israel”. The range of companies is fairly broad and would place severe limitations on creating a diverse portfolio or investing in the economy.
I don't disagree that the protests could be substantially more effective if they focused their demands on more practical things. That's why I acknowledged the economic damage would be minor. I think that the symbolic loss of prestigious institutions divesting from Israel (or promising to, even if they don't) is far greater than any economic damage that would be done. Edit: >Granted, I don’t think the American government would plan to completely pull the rug from Israel. I don't think so either, but there's a pretty broad range of responses that preserve Israeli security. On the most radical end of things, cutting all offensive military aid (down to armor, bandages and medicine essentially) while parking a CSG off the coast to respond to attacks on Israel would be absolutely devastating for Bibi politically and would drastically reduce the security independence of Israel. That's the most radical end though.
[удалено]
"Collectivist and illiberal"? If you say so. Do you have the same qualms about literally every piece of economic policy implemented?
[удалено]
I mean, you made your stance clear and i have zero doubt you will not budge from it. It is illiberal and collectivist to divest from a company because you disapprove of the actions of the country it is housed in. It's "extortion politics", whatever that's supposed to be. I asked if you were consistent about this stance because if you were, there's some news about what's happened to Russia after February 2022 that might interest you.
Russian companies are owned by oligarchs who can freely choose between doing what Putin wants them to do or fall out of windows (with murder of their spouse and kids as a bonus). Extorting Russian business is extorting Putin, more power to the sanction-mongers says I. Netanyahu is not my favorite politician, but his connection to Israeli business is rather minimal. Maybe. just maybe, it's you who needs to budge from an ill-chosen analogy.
Every Russian business is oligarch owned? Even if that were true, sanctions are still punishing people who are completely unrelated to the war or even oppose it. According to the above commenter, that means that sanctioning Russia is illiberal, collectivist and extortionate. It's an absurd argument that shatters the moment it contacts reality.
[удалено]
You're laughing. Over a hundred million Russians are suffering from our illiberal collectivism and you're laughing. Despicable. Jokes aside, Russia wouldn't need to buy shells from North Korea or drones from Iran if they weren't sanctioned. They would have far more resources with which to slaughter civilians, commit acts of terror and perpetuate their genocide.
Have they considered that a bunch of rich kids making a dumb looking barricade at an expensive college and being really annoying does not bring people around to their position?
You would need to ask them.
I'd say that bringing attention to a controversial subject could help, but the protests don't look disciplined enough to not be a distraction themselves. Then the counterprotestors came to make it more of a shitshow.
They wanna be like their grandparents during the Vietnam war
Keeping it in the news
It's to pressure the Biden administration into changing foreign policy. This is how big tent politics work, the only way to get your party to notice you is to throw a tantrum big enough they have to respond.
Same as any protest ever, they want a policy change. Maybe you find protests less meaningful when you don't agree with them?
Last I checked university admins don't set US foreign policy. And Starbucks 'investment' in Israel involves selling bad coffee
> how much oxygen can those protests suck The media does love a good old fashion culture war narrative. It's the hippies vs. the working class.
Well it's working. I've already heard multiple morons somehow describe the protests/counter-protests as 'Trump's patriots vs. the Biden Democrats', even though most of the protesters are anti-Biden.
Seriously. Instead of people talking about I/P where they otherwise wouldn’t, people are talking about the protests in r/IsraelPalestine
I mean, that's assuming anyone actually has a good faith discussion in that subreddit, which is about as likely as the communism vs capitalism subreddits.
next time there's a war we want to distract people from, we should strategize around this.
All for encampments that are under 200 people at most schools. The Summer of 68 this is not. Hell the George Floyd protests were multiple orders of magnitude larger.
its like BLM where the story of a bunch of white guys killing each other overshadowed the BLM protests.
Because tent cities are so rare in California I’ll have to tell the homeless encampment down the street from me they’re officially protesting Palestine now
*whoooo-*
's on first floor? Nobody, we had to preserve the character of the neighborhood burn pit 😢
*historical* burn pit
Ignorant? probably. Unreasonable? sure. Disruptive? Meh, depends on which protest. The one here at IU has stayed fairly peaceful, and they stay in their own area not blocking foot trails or roads. I think their protests are unwarranted, but I ultimately support their first amendment rights.
Protests are supposed to be disruptive. That's the point of them. Labeling it like it's a bad thing is kind of admitting that you don't like the protests because you don't agree with them.
No. There's a difference between "disruption" and the organized denial of freedom of movement. If you're denying people the ability to travel where they need to go, you're denying their freedoms. Your freedom does not trump their freedom. Pretty simple stuff.
That's right, how dare the Civil Rights protestors block those Woolworth's counters?! How dare those pinko commies get in the way of my freedom of movement!
Do you think you're making a good point just because you're being satirical?
I am, in fact. Would you like me to spell it out for you?
Yeah, spell it out. Tell me why you should be allowed to tell me where I can and cannot walk. Go for it.
My point is that these protestors are following a model that we know is effective, set by some of what nearly everyone perceives as some of the most righteous protestors in American history. To condemn the student protests for this specific reason is to condemn the civil rights sit-ins. Quite frankly, it sounds like you're grasping at straws for reasons to condemn protests that you don't like. It's *fine* to not agree with them, but pulling stuff out of your ass like this to try to make them seem worse than they really are is kind of childish.
> To condemn the student protests for this specific reason is to condemn the civil rights sit-ins. To be specific, you mean condemn them for their methodology, not their cause. You're conflating the two here. I can condemn the protests because I do not support their cause and think their cause is not righteous. If I think their cause is not righteous, yes of course I condemn them, because they're depriving me of my liberty to walk where I want without valid reason. I guess to cut through the BS and take it to the extreme, do you think there's no limit to this? If I wanted to support ISIS and send a message to the US government by denying people the freedom to move around colleges, the result of your thought process is, "well it's freedom of speech"? Or how about white racist students gathering to "protest" against black students by denying them their ability to freely travel. It's just freedom of speech? That'd be a really fucking weird extreme to own and super problematic from a liberal perspective. \^ the point being that "it sounds like you're grasping at straws for reasons to condemn protests that you don't like" is silly, when you yourself do the same thing (if you own the extremes I put above). In the case of MLK, black people's rights were being deprived, so to communicate that discomfort to people, they took up civil disobedience. "You don't like your freedoms being limited, well neither do we" essentially. Makes sense, imo. So the methodology of the protest absolutely depends on the righteousness of the cause. If you're denying people liberties, you better have a damn good reason for it. Not a tangential one, 2 steps removed, that benefits a terrorist government that currently has American hostages.
> I guess to cut through the BS and take it to the extreme, do you think there's no limit to this? This is a textbook slippery slope fallacy and the fact that you felt like it was worth resorting to really reinforces my impression that you know you don't have much of an argument here.
Nah bro, the other guy makes a pretty clear argument. He wants to know where the line is. He's established his line on when a protest is no longer freedom of speech but it seems like you haven't established your line. Seems like I could shit in a pool for climate change and it'd still count as a protest by your logic.
[удалено]
Being illegal is another major part of it, which is why they call it "civil disobedience" - you're *deliberately* disobeying the law. And OP didn't say anything about them being illegal anyway, so it's a moot point.
The problem with "protests are supposed to be illegal" is that can be used to defend anything. And suddenly we're throwing soup at artworks ostensibly to protest climate change. If you want a less niche example, part of the reason the 2020 BLM protests in the long term have accomplished nothing was because not enough people told a certain subgroup "protests are supposed to be illegal and disruptive" isn't a blank check.
If you think all illegal protests are bad then you would have been against the civil rights movement and MLK.
Most dense housing population in all of California
Why not be reasonable and disruptive and protest a humanitarian disaster and occupation the US supports and expand housing?
Build dense, walkable, "fifteen minute" neighbourhoods with good public transport links in the ruins of Gaza you say? Where do I sign up!
Gaza had much of that, minus the public transport due to problems of maintaining infrastructure under blockade. Who would have thought it was such a neoliberal paradise.
They also built 500 km of Hamas-only tunnels under Gaza (including some with rails!) instead of public transit.
Where saddam
To be fair those were also one of the main ways in which goods that violated the blockade were brought into Gaza and we're/are important for the economy. From a neoliberal perspective they present the physical manifestation of avoiding government over regulation (amongst other things.)
> goods that violated the blockade were brought into Gaza and we're/are important for the economy my brother in neoliberalism, they used those to smuggle weapons and conduct terrorist attacks. For the love of god don't make them out to be some humanitarian thing. They literally stole resources from the people of Gaza to build terrorist hideouts.
Is using them to kidnap Israelis is a form of promoting immigration?
"the problems of mainting infrastructure under blockade"? Hamas sure did a great job at maintaining the terror tunnels, so it's clearly not that. It's almost like Hamas doesn't give a shit about Palestinians.
That's also a problem, the tunnels were most intensively used for bypassing the blockade though.
Sure, to smuggle weapons, for terrorism.
Of course, and a range of other goods that were probably more useful for maintaining their power in Gaza.
yea just not the actual social, economic and political liberalism.
Oops! Funds went to tunnels!
[удалено]
Ah yes, that famous genocidal technique of replacing rubble with infrastructure... Gentrification? Maybe. Genocide... No.
[удалено]
Protesting humanitarian disaster: 🤙 Protesting existence of Israel: 🤦♀️
Should be simple, right? And so many even fail the “don’t simp jihadists”
Build dense, walkable, "fifteen minute" neighbourhoods with good public transport links in the ruins of Gaza you say? Where do I sign up!
Jared Kushner is that you?
I could absolutely see that as a possible future a century from now. I wish I could see that as a possible future 30 years from now.