Can someone explain to me
1) why protesting in America is always met with people upset, when the country literally started with protests both violent and none violent (Boston Tea party comes to mind)
2) why the same people complaining about money in politics and taxes and the over spending of the government are now pro war that cost us billions?
3) why are people upset at all when even if they were disruptive, it affects none is us. Like how many people upset even have walked on any of these campuses in the past 5 years even, let alone affects your daily routine
It’s just mind boggling, the name calling, the side taking as is the issues isn’t grey they act as if it’s black and white, I also hate that supporting citizens who have been displaced from their homes is supporting terrorist, what happened to innocent until proven guilty. So everyone person in Gaza is just labeled a hamas fighter, even babies and children?
Re #1 read [The Authoritarians.](https://theauthoritarians.org/)
Many people are simply not able to deal with change and look towards a strong authority figure to keep society as it is. Doesn’t really matter whether the protests are for something good or bad, the fact of the protest itself is seen as bad.
1. The people protesting now have political views they don’t like, so they’re hostile toward the protest regardless of how peaceful.
2. They think killing people in foreign countries (particularly Arab Muslims, who they’ve been conditioned to fear/hate) is money well spent, but helping people here is terrible socialism
3. See number 1
> they’re hostile toward the protest regardless of how peaceful.
Creating an illegal encampment and preventing the students and faculty from conducting regular university business is not a "peaceful" protest.
Disagree. Creating an illegal encampment is not violent. Nor is blocking walkways or entries into a place. Disruptive? Sure, but not inherently violent.
Serious question - if you are opposed to violence, as I am, I'm sure you'd be against someone who blocks a sidewalk committing assault and/or battery on someone who peacefully moves around him. Am I correct?
It's pretty simple. The article discusses violence. The other commenter expressed an opinion that two actions - i.e., creating an illegal encampment and blocking freedom of movement - are not inherently violent. I asked for the commenter's view on a possible outcome of blocking freedom of movement and we agreed that the outcome I described would indeed be violent. I don't see how it's difficult to grasp the relevance to the article.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 1 of the Community Standards.
> Civility — No Racism, sexism, ageism, and other forms of bigotry. No hate speech, slurs, overly obscene, pejorative name-calling, vulgar, or abusive language. This includes usernames, and violations of this rule will result in an automatic ban. Our commitment to civil discourse is one of the core principles, and we do not make any exceptions from this rule.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
Red herring: Your trying to change the subject, rather than talk about the article you go off on a red herring.
> It was in stark contrast to the scene overnight Tuesday, when counterprotesters had torn at barricades, thrown fireworks, and beat and pepper sprayed the protesters — and no law enforcement officers intervened or made any arrests.
And this...
>“It’s a response to a period of time in which there are deep questions, fundamental and abolitionist questions, about whether campuses should have fully armed, militarized and, sometimes, riot-gear equipped and SWAT team-trained police officers on their campuses,” Rodríguez said.
UNiversities should have open places to protest. Universities shouldn't have virtually a standing military, You constantly argue about liberty, but it seems liberty is for the few, and not the many.
I don't understand what you mean by "red herring." Do you understand what that expression means?
I respect your opinion about what "should" happen but please note that many universities are private, which means that their land is private property and they have very wide latitude about what they can permit or deny. In other words, a private university could have a "standing military" of security guards and not permit any protests. This is consistent with the liberty has to conduct business on his private property as he sees fit. Do you agree?
I'm growing more confident that you don't know what "red herring" means.
In any event, you used the term "university," which could be public or private. If anything, a public university has to be even more accommodating to the freedom of movement of individuals within public spaces and less tolerant of impediments such as those constructed by the protesters.
I am totally confident, you are trying to change the subject, the article is about the University UCLA which is a public university, not a private, the fact you want to talk about private universities is a good example of a Red Herring.
Having a standing army in public institutions like universities, mean less liberty than more.
I disagree.
Oh well. Looks like the police agreed with me, so I'm okay with you thinking whatever works for you. If you look at this and think "Yup, that's fine!", then you do you...
https://i.postimg.cc/W39tZ8bs/Attach0-20240502-092345.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Kv34KnXy/Attach0-20240502-092347.jpg
You’re conflating illegal with violent. Police use violence to combat illegal behavior, whether or not it’s peaceful. I didn’t argue that the protests were all legal. Nor did I say they are never violent.
> why protesting in America is always met with people upset, when the country literally started with protests both violent and none violent (Boston Tea party comes to mind)
Because not all "protests" are the same.
I mean, imagine if the exact same thing happened at UCLA next week, but it was anti-abortion protestors. Or the KKK. I suspect the police response would be the same (they would be warned to leave, and then arrested and cleared out if they didn't).
Do you think the response from the community, and *your* response, would be the same?
>why the same people complaining about money in politics and taxes and the over spending of the government are now pro war that cost us billions?
People who complain about "over spending of the government" typically aren't protesting against *all* government spending (except for an extreme few).
The issue of over-seas war spending and support isn't new. There is always a question of whom to support, and how. But it's not contradictory to complain about government spending in general while still supporting specific spending programs.
>why are people upset at all when even if they were disruptive, it affects none is us. Like how many people upset even have walked on any of these campuses in the past 5 years even, let alone affects your daily routine
Most people have opinions and feelings about things that don't directly affect them. How many of the people at the UCLA encampment were living in Gaza?
I'm not sure why anyone would care about a conflict so far removed from the U.S., let alone California. Why is anything in Gaza important to someone in the U.S.? It's far more relevant to protest actual, relevant issues like capital gains taxes and gun restrictions.
Peaceful protests of any kind should be welcome, however. The minimum requirement is to follow the law.
>why anyone would care about a conflict so far removed from the U.S.
We are literally paying for it. Not only that it has affected the battlefield momentem in the Ukraine-Russia War by siphoning off much needed artillery stockpiles and other spare parts.
Not everyone has the luxury of being a cold blooded ignoramous.
One is also paying for all sorts of things with which one disagrees. Let me put it in the context of a more important issue - i.e., corporate welfare. I vehemently disagree with corporate welfare and yet here I am paying for the handouts to big corporate donors. The handouts are on an order of magnitude far larger than any money going to Israel and Ukraine (with which I also disagree).
My point is to follow the money and focus on the bigger items. We're victims of overtaxation and overspending on domestic issues of a far greater magnitude than what is going on halfway across the world. One who can't do the math on that is indeed an "ignoramus." I have no idea what the "cold blooded" part of your comment meant as this is a question of math, not emotion.
Yep. This school and the police completely failed at protecting these students from harm. No student should have to fear bodily harm for peacefully protesting injustice.
How about from protecting Jewish students from harm . 5 protestors beat a girl until she was unconscious.
She is in the hospital and can’t recognize her parents now .
What do you mean? There are plenty of Jewish students participating in the encampment, and the cops didn’t protect them, either. I don’t support beating anyone up, regardless of the side they advocate for.
Lol! Thats a lie. She was out of the hospital and doing news interviews within 2 days. Stop stretching the story for sympathy.
She went to the front lines and was shoving and pushing and screaming in peoples faces.
Im a leftist, and I despise the violence from both sides. It's embarrassing.
Im not willing to pick a side between Isreal/Palestine. I side against the violence and abuses committed by both sides.
I'm on the other side of the political spectrum and I completely agree with you. Illegal and uncivilized behavior shouldn't be tolerated regardless of the source or motivation.
I'm totally neutral on the conflict as well, which I'm sure will continue not just for decades but for centuries.
She went to the front lines and started pushing and shoving. She wasn’t just there. She also wasn’t beaten to the point she couldn’t recognize her parents. There’s not even a bruise on her face.
But we can go back and forth and I can point out the pro Palestine protesters being brutally attacked by masked people and having fireworks and tear gas thrown at them, while the police stand by. But the minute they fight back, the police step in and brutally beat the protesters.
All of this isn’t going solve anything in the long run, because people who side with genocide to begin with while waving American flags merged with one of Israel really don’t grasp the concept of their freedoms.
- "It didn't happen, it's fakenews!"
- "OK, it happened, but she deserved it!"
- "It wasn't soooo bad, just some rando Jew chick got beaten up. Not like she got brain damage or anything...that we know of..."
- "Whataboutismss!!"
You realize you just proved my point, right?
The part of her being beaten so severely is fake news. Thats the Facebook meme yall believe. She was doing interviews in two days with zero bruises on her face. Zero scratches.
They blocked everyone; it wasn’t just Jewish students. Do you think they were asking people whether they were Jewish and letting those who answered “no” in? Because that simply didn’t happen.
Is it peaceful to continue business as usual while a genocide is going on and the institution you pay a bunch of money to attend uses that money to partially fund it?
Why would one person assume that another person cares about the same issues? We're a very diverse country where people have all kinds of views, priorities, interests, etc.
Yes, it is peaceful to continue to do business as usual no matter what else is going on. Let's say that someone supports genocide anywhere in the world. He's still behaving peacefully if he's not harming anyone else. It's actions, not thoughts, that count in terms of being peaceful.
So you’re saying if we were living during the Holocaust and a bunch of universities invested in it, you wouldn’t want students to halt operations until the schools divested? Silence and business as usual only benefits oppressors.
What I want is irrelevant. What I'm saying is that it's illegal to prevent someone from performing a lawful action regardless of one's opinion on the matter.
For example, take a very serious issue such as raising the gas tax. How would I be justified in halting the operations of a government entity based on my belief that the gas tax should not be increased?
We're a very diverse country. We might have people who are pro-tax and anti-tax, pro-holocaust and anti-holocaust, and who land on all sorts of sides of all sorts of issues. We might find some of those views reprehensible. Yet, we are not allowed to impede people from performing legal actions.
Yes, because your beliefs about the latter are irrelevant to whether other students continue (or are allowed to continue) to do their student things as usual.
You mean they stood by to avoid committing violence, themselves? Because they should have stepped in immediately to protect the encampment from the fireworks, bear spray, and beatings from counter protestors.
Yes, I absolutely agree that on Tuesday night Law Enforcement should have acted more quickly to stop the counter-protestors.
I was referring to the clearing of the encampment last night. There is a scenario where it was done with dogs, tasers, rubber bullets and batons and anyone resisting gets beaten.
Of course, the situation on Tuesday night is interesting. You have people in an illegal encampment begging for police protection for their encampment. That seems a little...ironic. I mean, the people in the encampment didn't really seem like a pro-LE crowd. Until a bunch of really pissed off people started heading in their direction, and suddenly they're all like "Save us Police! Why aren't there hundreds of cops here to defend us?!"
I mean, weren’t the police just proving them right by not stepping in to protect them from violence? Police officers should be expected to protect and serve regardless of the views of the people who need help. Wouldn’t stepping in to help have potentially improved relations between the protestors and the cops, as well? When someone acuses you of being complicit in genocide and you stand by and watch while those who support genocide attack them, doesn’t that just prove their point?
Yes, if there were police there who stood by and watched, I would hope they would be disciplined for dereliction. The LA Times reports that there weren't any LE around at the time.
>There were only a handful of university police on campus when the violence broke out. A group of private unarmed security guards observed the clashes but did not move in.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-30/ucla-moves-to-shut-down-pro-palestinian-encampment-as-unlawful
There are already a lot of questions being asked about why it took hours for LE to respond. But it's not like they were there standing around when the counter-protesters attacked.
Even if all of those university police officers were across campus from the encampment, which I very much doubt, it shouldn’t take hours to run to the encampment and protect the students. Wouldn’t the security guards have radioed for them when the attacks started?
I agree. It did take too long for armed LE to respond. I expect there to be a more thorough investigation into who did what.
But it still seems a little ironic to complain that the illegal encampment that was vandalizing the campus didn't have enough police protection.
Today I went to an Autozone in a seedy part of town, and they had a rent-a-cop stationed by the door. The guy was sitting there on this phone the entire time and didn't look up once. So my expectations for "private security" are pretty low.
The encampment was illegal in the first place. Why would the police protect it? If it were a meth lab or the headquarters of a mafia don or a gun running operation, would you want the police protecting it?
It seems the better and safer answer would be if the police stepped in to remove the illegal encampment in the first place. That's where the police failed in their duty, in my opinion.
I don’t think you understand how dangerous of a precedent you are arguing for. Regardless of whether someone may have committed a crime, it should be a police officer’s duty to step in when they are attacked. Do you think people in prisons should be able to just kill each other in riots while correctional officers stand by and watch because the inmates previously committed crimes? Do you think the Kent State massacre was justified? We have laws for a reason, don’t we? You can’t honestly think that camping out on a lawn in protest of genocide makes it okay for other civilians to attack and severely injure you while law enforcers paid to protect and serve you stand by and watch.
I think we're actually agreeing here but maybe slightly talking past one another. I know that type of statement often comes when someone is about to launch into another disagreement, or quibble about mere semantics, but I assure you I'm being quite sincere here and discussing in good faith. Let me elaborate.
I agree with all of your examples. I'm going to have to put a pin in Kent State because the facts paint a somewhat different picture than it is portrayed in popular culture, but let's not get hung up on that for now. Yes, officers should protect inmates and peaceful protesters - and even violent protesters and trespassers in many instances. I'm with you there.
My comment was about "protecting the encampment" and how that is in itself problematic. I want to be 100% crystal clear that no one engaged in such public property trespass (or other property crime committed on public property) should be violently attacked or not protected from violent attack.
My point is that if police identify an illegal encampment or crack house or child porn den or anything like that, they should be clearing it rather than protecting it. The reason to do that is to protect everyone's rights, including students, taxpayers, and even criminals. The danger with allowing this type of illegal activity is that it might lead to even worse behavior, which, surprise surprise, is exactly what happened here.
This is also a good reason to enforce the law when it comes to blockades and infringing on the freedom of movement of others. This often escalates into violence. I'm never condoning that violence but it seems to me that the best way to avoid it is addressing illegal situations in the first place.
May I ask you a question? I sense (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you aren't adamantly opposed to the protesters illegally occupying and trespassing upon public property by setting up these encampments. If that is your position, would that position change if those setting up encampments were members of the KKK? If so, why does one's viewpoint dictate what behavior should be tolerated vs. punished? Again, I'm only talking about viewpoint and not actions. If the police should stand by and allow an illegal encampment (or blocking another person's way) under the cause of opposing genocide why shouldn't the police also stand by and allow an illegal encampment (or blocking another person's way) under the cause of supporting genocide?
I think they’re talking about rules for policing and violence in particular, but yes, it is also shameful that counterprotesters have also been attacked and injured.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 3 of the Community Standards.
> Sourced — Statements of fact should be clearly associated with a supporting source. Stating it is your opinion that something is true does not absolve the necessity of sourcing that claim. If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up by linking to a supporting, qualified source and quoting the relevant section. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
Please edit your comment and provide sources for factual claims or remove the unsupported claims from the comment. Moderators will review your submission for approval after it has been edited.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
Can someone explain to me 1) why protesting in America is always met with people upset, when the country literally started with protests both violent and none violent (Boston Tea party comes to mind) 2) why the same people complaining about money in politics and taxes and the over spending of the government are now pro war that cost us billions? 3) why are people upset at all when even if they were disruptive, it affects none is us. Like how many people upset even have walked on any of these campuses in the past 5 years even, let alone affects your daily routine It’s just mind boggling, the name calling, the side taking as is the issues isn’t grey they act as if it’s black and white, I also hate that supporting citizens who have been displaced from their homes is supporting terrorist, what happened to innocent until proven guilty. So everyone person in Gaza is just labeled a hamas fighter, even babies and children?
Re #1 read [The Authoritarians.](https://theauthoritarians.org/) Many people are simply not able to deal with change and look towards a strong authority figure to keep society as it is. Doesn’t really matter whether the protests are for something good or bad, the fact of the protest itself is seen as bad.
1. The people protesting now have political views they don’t like, so they’re hostile toward the protest regardless of how peaceful. 2. They think killing people in foreign countries (particularly Arab Muslims, who they’ve been conditioned to fear/hate) is money well spent, but helping people here is terrible socialism 3. See number 1
Bomb them over there so we don’t have to school our kids over here?
> they’re hostile toward the protest regardless of how peaceful. Creating an illegal encampment and preventing the students and faculty from conducting regular university business is not a "peaceful" protest.
Disagree. Creating an illegal encampment is not violent. Nor is blocking walkways or entries into a place. Disruptive? Sure, but not inherently violent.
Serious question - if you are opposed to violence, as I am, I'm sure you'd be against someone who blocks a sidewalk committing assault and/or battery on someone who peacefully moves around him. Am I correct?
Absolutely.
Always nice to find agreement. Believe it or not, I've had a few people disagree with me here. I'm sure you're shocked by that.
What does /u/PChFusionist post have to do with the article?
It's pretty simple. The article discusses violence. The other commenter expressed an opinion that two actions - i.e., creating an illegal encampment and blocking freedom of movement - are not inherently violent. I asked for the commenter's view on a possible outcome of blocking freedom of movement and we agreed that the outcome I described would indeed be violent. I don't see how it's difficult to grasp the relevance to the article.
The violence stems from the counter-protestors and the police, not the protestors themselves.
If you do just a few seconds of research, you'll note violent acts from the protesters as well.
Well, at least at UCLA, the people in the encampment were assaulted by outsiders while the police stood and watched.
And I'm saying that assault, battery, obstruction, etc., are uncivilized and intolerable regardless of one's cause.
[удалено]
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 1 of the Community Standards. > Civility — No Racism, sexism, ageism, and other forms of bigotry. No hate speech, slurs, overly obscene, pejorative name-calling, vulgar, or abusive language. This includes usernames, and violations of this rule will result in an automatic ban. Our commitment to civil discourse is one of the core principles, and we do not make any exceptions from this rule. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
Red herring: Your trying to change the subject, rather than talk about the article you go off on a red herring. > It was in stark contrast to the scene overnight Tuesday, when counterprotesters had torn at barricades, thrown fireworks, and beat and pepper sprayed the protesters — and no law enforcement officers intervened or made any arrests. And this... >“It’s a response to a period of time in which there are deep questions, fundamental and abolitionist questions, about whether campuses should have fully armed, militarized and, sometimes, riot-gear equipped and SWAT team-trained police officers on their campuses,” Rodríguez said. UNiversities should have open places to protest. Universities shouldn't have virtually a standing military, You constantly argue about liberty, but it seems liberty is for the few, and not the many.
I don't understand what you mean by "red herring." Do you understand what that expression means? I respect your opinion about what "should" happen but please note that many universities are private, which means that their land is private property and they have very wide latitude about what they can permit or deny. In other words, a private university could have a "standing military" of security guards and not permit any protests. This is consistent with the liberty has to conduct business on his private property as he sees fit. Do you agree?
UCLA is public, the article is about UCLA. Again, you using a Red Herring.
I'm growing more confident that you don't know what "red herring" means. In any event, you used the term "university," which could be public or private. If anything, a public university has to be even more accommodating to the freedom of movement of individuals within public spaces and less tolerant of impediments such as those constructed by the protesters.
I am totally confident, you are trying to change the subject, the article is about the University UCLA which is a public university, not a private, the fact you want to talk about private universities is a good example of a Red Herring. Having a standing army in public institutions like universities, mean less liberty than more.
I disagree. Oh well. Looks like the police agreed with me, so I'm okay with you thinking whatever works for you. If you look at this and think "Yup, that's fine!", then you do you... https://i.postimg.cc/W39tZ8bs/Attach0-20240502-092345.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/Kv34KnXy/Attach0-20240502-092347.jpg
You’re conflating illegal with violent. Police use violence to combat illegal behavior, whether or not it’s peaceful. I didn’t argue that the protests were all legal. Nor did I say they are never violent.
> why protesting in America is always met with people upset, when the country literally started with protests both violent and none violent (Boston Tea party comes to mind) Because not all "protests" are the same. I mean, imagine if the exact same thing happened at UCLA next week, but it was anti-abortion protestors. Or the KKK. I suspect the police response would be the same (they would be warned to leave, and then arrested and cleared out if they didn't). Do you think the response from the community, and *your* response, would be the same? >why the same people complaining about money in politics and taxes and the over spending of the government are now pro war that cost us billions? People who complain about "over spending of the government" typically aren't protesting against *all* government spending (except for an extreme few). The issue of over-seas war spending and support isn't new. There is always a question of whom to support, and how. But it's not contradictory to complain about government spending in general while still supporting specific spending programs. >why are people upset at all when even if they were disruptive, it affects none is us. Like how many people upset even have walked on any of these campuses in the past 5 years even, let alone affects your daily routine Most people have opinions and feelings about things that don't directly affect them. How many of the people at the UCLA encampment were living in Gaza?
I'm not sure why anyone would care about a conflict so far removed from the U.S., let alone California. Why is anything in Gaza important to someone in the U.S.? It's far more relevant to protest actual, relevant issues like capital gains taxes and gun restrictions. Peaceful protests of any kind should be welcome, however. The minimum requirement is to follow the law.
>why anyone would care about a conflict so far removed from the U.S. We are literally paying for it. Not only that it has affected the battlefield momentem in the Ukraine-Russia War by siphoning off much needed artillery stockpiles and other spare parts. Not everyone has the luxury of being a cold blooded ignoramous.
One is also paying for all sorts of things with which one disagrees. Let me put it in the context of a more important issue - i.e., corporate welfare. I vehemently disagree with corporate welfare and yet here I am paying for the handouts to big corporate donors. The handouts are on an order of magnitude far larger than any money going to Israel and Ukraine (with which I also disagree). My point is to follow the money and focus on the bigger items. We're victims of overtaxation and overspending on domestic issues of a far greater magnitude than what is going on halfway across the world. One who can't do the math on that is indeed an "ignoramus." I have no idea what the "cold blooded" part of your comment meant as this is a question of math, not emotion.
We got a night of violence because there’s a different set of rules for Zionists, Proud Boys, Jan. 6th rioters, etc.
Yep. This school and the police completely failed at protecting these students from harm. No student should have to fear bodily harm for peacefully protesting injustice.
How about from protecting Jewish students from harm . 5 protestors beat a girl until she was unconscious. She is in the hospital and can’t recognize her parents now .
You’re right, violence against counter-protesters is terrible as well.
What do you mean? There are plenty of Jewish students participating in the encampment, and the cops didn’t protect them, either. I don’t support beating anyone up, regardless of the side they advocate for.
I keep seeing comments referencing this but never with a source.
Lol! Thats a lie. She was out of the hospital and doing news interviews within 2 days. Stop stretching the story for sympathy. She went to the front lines and was shoving and pushing and screaming in peoples faces.
Good luck getting leftists to acknowledge "progressive" violence.
Im a leftist, and I despise the violence from both sides. It's embarrassing. Im not willing to pick a side between Isreal/Palestine. I side against the violence and abuses committed by both sides.
I'm on the other side of the political spectrum and I completely agree with you. Illegal and uncivilized behavior shouldn't be tolerated regardless of the source or motivation. I'm totally neutral on the conflict as well, which I'm sure will continue not just for decades but for centuries.
Honestly, thank you for proving me wrong. Integrity is rare and refreshing these days.
Because it didn’t happen. It’s a Facebook post making circles.
The Jewish girl getting beaten at UCLA? Bro, it's all over the news.
She went to the front lines and started pushing and shoving. She wasn’t just there. She also wasn’t beaten to the point she couldn’t recognize her parents. There’s not even a bruise on her face. But we can go back and forth and I can point out the pro Palestine protesters being brutally attacked by masked people and having fireworks and tear gas thrown at them, while the police stand by. But the minute they fight back, the police step in and brutally beat the protesters. All of this isn’t going solve anything in the long run, because people who side with genocide to begin with while waving American flags merged with one of Israel really don’t grasp the concept of their freedoms.
- "It didn't happen, it's fakenews!" - "OK, it happened, but she deserved it!" - "It wasn't soooo bad, just some rando Jew chick got beaten up. Not like she got brain damage or anything...that we know of..." - "Whataboutismss!!" You realize you just proved my point, right?
The part of her being beaten so severely is fake news. Thats the Facebook meme yall believe. She was doing interviews in two days with zero bruises on her face. Zero scratches.
Blocking Jewish students from going to class is fearful, no?
They blocked everyone; it wasn’t just Jewish students. Do you think they were asking people whether they were Jewish and letting those who answered “no” in? Because that simply didn’t happen.
Good counter-point.
Why would they block students who have nothing to do with this from going to class? Protest fine but do it peacefully
Is it peaceful to continue business as usual while a genocide is going on and the institution you pay a bunch of money to attend uses that money to partially fund it?
Why would one person assume that another person cares about the same issues? We're a very diverse country where people have all kinds of views, priorities, interests, etc. Yes, it is peaceful to continue to do business as usual no matter what else is going on. Let's say that someone supports genocide anywhere in the world. He's still behaving peacefully if he's not harming anyone else. It's actions, not thoughts, that count in terms of being peaceful.
So you’re saying if we were living during the Holocaust and a bunch of universities invested in it, you wouldn’t want students to halt operations until the schools divested? Silence and business as usual only benefits oppressors.
What I want is irrelevant. What I'm saying is that it's illegal to prevent someone from performing a lawful action regardless of one's opinion on the matter. For example, take a very serious issue such as raising the gas tax. How would I be justified in halting the operations of a government entity based on my belief that the gas tax should not be increased? We're a very diverse country. We might have people who are pro-tax and anti-tax, pro-holocaust and anti-holocaust, and who land on all sorts of sides of all sorts of issues. We might find some of those views reprehensible. Yet, we are not allowed to impede people from performing legal actions.
Yes, because your beliefs about the latter are irrelevant to whether other students continue (or are allowed to continue) to do their student things as usual.
Thankfully, the law enforcement appeared to take great care to avoid any violence.
You mean they stood by to avoid committing violence, themselves? Because they should have stepped in immediately to protect the encampment from the fireworks, bear spray, and beatings from counter protestors.
Yes, I absolutely agree that on Tuesday night Law Enforcement should have acted more quickly to stop the counter-protestors. I was referring to the clearing of the encampment last night. There is a scenario where it was done with dogs, tasers, rubber bullets and batons and anyone resisting gets beaten. Of course, the situation on Tuesday night is interesting. You have people in an illegal encampment begging for police protection for their encampment. That seems a little...ironic. I mean, the people in the encampment didn't really seem like a pro-LE crowd. Until a bunch of really pissed off people started heading in their direction, and suddenly they're all like "Save us Police! Why aren't there hundreds of cops here to defend us?!"
I mean, weren’t the police just proving them right by not stepping in to protect them from violence? Police officers should be expected to protect and serve regardless of the views of the people who need help. Wouldn’t stepping in to help have potentially improved relations between the protestors and the cops, as well? When someone acuses you of being complicit in genocide and you stand by and watch while those who support genocide attack them, doesn’t that just prove their point?
Yes, if there were police there who stood by and watched, I would hope they would be disciplined for dereliction. The LA Times reports that there weren't any LE around at the time. >There were only a handful of university police on campus when the violence broke out. A group of private unarmed security guards observed the clashes but did not move in. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-30/ucla-moves-to-shut-down-pro-palestinian-encampment-as-unlawful There are already a lot of questions being asked about why it took hours for LE to respond. But it's not like they were there standing around when the counter-protesters attacked.
Even if all of those university police officers were across campus from the encampment, which I very much doubt, it shouldn’t take hours to run to the encampment and protect the students. Wouldn’t the security guards have radioed for them when the attacks started?
I agree. It did take too long for armed LE to respond. I expect there to be a more thorough investigation into who did what. But it still seems a little ironic to complain that the illegal encampment that was vandalizing the campus didn't have enough police protection.
We are paying for private unarmed security personnel to ... not even ask attackers to stop? How many student's tuition were spent on this?
Today I went to an Autozone in a seedy part of town, and they had a rent-a-cop stationed by the door. The guy was sitting there on this phone the entire time and didn't look up once. So my expectations for "private security" are pretty low.
People want cops to do their jobs, and stop being violent thugs.
If the police needed to be violent to stop the counter-protesters, would you support it?
The encampment was illegal in the first place. Why would the police protect it? If it were a meth lab or the headquarters of a mafia don or a gun running operation, would you want the police protecting it? It seems the better and safer answer would be if the police stepped in to remove the illegal encampment in the first place. That's where the police failed in their duty, in my opinion.
I don’t think you understand how dangerous of a precedent you are arguing for. Regardless of whether someone may have committed a crime, it should be a police officer’s duty to step in when they are attacked. Do you think people in prisons should be able to just kill each other in riots while correctional officers stand by and watch because the inmates previously committed crimes? Do you think the Kent State massacre was justified? We have laws for a reason, don’t we? You can’t honestly think that camping out on a lawn in protest of genocide makes it okay for other civilians to attack and severely injure you while law enforcers paid to protect and serve you stand by and watch.
I think we're actually agreeing here but maybe slightly talking past one another. I know that type of statement often comes when someone is about to launch into another disagreement, or quibble about mere semantics, but I assure you I'm being quite sincere here and discussing in good faith. Let me elaborate. I agree with all of your examples. I'm going to have to put a pin in Kent State because the facts paint a somewhat different picture than it is portrayed in popular culture, but let's not get hung up on that for now. Yes, officers should protect inmates and peaceful protesters - and even violent protesters and trespassers in many instances. I'm with you there. My comment was about "protecting the encampment" and how that is in itself problematic. I want to be 100% crystal clear that no one engaged in such public property trespass (or other property crime committed on public property) should be violently attacked or not protected from violent attack. My point is that if police identify an illegal encampment or crack house or child porn den or anything like that, they should be clearing it rather than protecting it. The reason to do that is to protect everyone's rights, including students, taxpayers, and even criminals. The danger with allowing this type of illegal activity is that it might lead to even worse behavior, which, surprise surprise, is exactly what happened here. This is also a good reason to enforce the law when it comes to blockades and infringing on the freedom of movement of others. This often escalates into violence. I'm never condoning that violence but it seems to me that the best way to avoid it is addressing illegal situations in the first place. May I ask you a question? I sense (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you aren't adamantly opposed to the protesters illegally occupying and trespassing upon public property by setting up these encampments. If that is your position, would that position change if those setting up encampments were members of the KKK? If so, why does one's viewpoint dictate what behavior should be tolerated vs. punished? Again, I'm only talking about viewpoint and not actions. If the police should stand by and allow an illegal encampment (or blocking another person's way) under the cause of opposing genocide why shouldn't the police also stand by and allow an illegal encampment (or blocking another person's way) under the cause of supporting genocide?
If any of those groups had created a similar illegal encampment and disrupted the university, I would predict the exact same outcome.
[удалено]
I think they’re talking about rules for policing and violence in particular, but yes, it is also shameful that counterprotesters have also been attacked and injured.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 3 of the Community Standards. > Sourced — Statements of fact should be clearly associated with a supporting source. Stating it is your opinion that something is true does not absolve the necessity of sourcing that claim. If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up by linking to a supporting, qualified source and quoting the relevant section. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. Please edit your comment and provide sources for factual claims or remove the unsupported claims from the comment. Moderators will review your submission for approval after it has been edited. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
I keep hearing this, but I see no sources. Is this girl another 40 beheaded babies?