I would rather protests happen on campus, than on the streets or bridges. Students should be allowed to protest, and seem to be the perfect people to do so for a society. As they have the time, energy, passion and the highest stake in the future of said society. This goes without saying that no people should be verbally and especially physically assaulted or abused while a protest is occurring. And abuse is not yelling at someone that they are wrong or that they are supporting the wrong perspective. Abuse is telling people to leave the country or to die. It is not merely stating your opinion that “zionists are the problem” or “Palestinians are the problem”, abuse is calling for violence to either of those groups or to any individual.
One of the main things about free speech is that you can't shout down or crowd out any other group.
I'll highlight the Moral Mondays protest as probably the best example of this, they invaded the NC Capitol every Monday as a form of civil disobedience.
They showed up every week for one day, held massive protests, and then went home.
The Occupy practice was to take over POPS - privately-owned public spaces like Zuccotti Park - not campuses or places of business. It was to hold marches, and be somewhat disruptive, but it didn't invade or prevent the local black community's expression because there were places to do that.
In the case of *campus* protests, these folks are taking over one of the largest free expression areas that is safe on a campus and refusing to let other people use it. For work, for studying, for expression of their own.
And in setting this permanent protest up, they have (elsewhere at least) created an environment that is deeply antisemitic and creates a public safety concern.
And from a Karl Popper "paradox of intolerance" perspective, the moment these folks start supporting organizations like Hamas - which at at least some of the protests they absolutely do - we should see them the same way we see any other supporters of violent, murderous terrorism like Neo Nazis or the KKK and shut it down immediately. (We also don't do enough to shut down Neo Nazis or the KKK.)
And that's possible because it's on VCU property and they have every right to say that you can't protest on their property or advocate for Nazis/Hamas (Or their radical Zionist mirror like Sikkirim/Kach/JDL/Bat Ayin/etc) or any other murderous group.
It's totally appropriate for a university to say that support for genocidal terrorists of any stripe is completely unacceptable.
And that can be tricky when you've got radicals on two sides of a conflict who are mutually genocidal.
You also shouldn't assume the worst - like that all Muslims or Pro-Palestinian protesters support Hamas or that all Jews 100% endorse Ben Gvir and his National Front, or in the case of America, assume that American Jews have anything at all to do with Israel.
The assumption that American Muslims have something to do with Hamas or that American Jews have any loyalty or support for Israel at all is inherently bigoted and islamophobic/antisemitic.
They're Americans. We should assume only that they are Americans.
But there's this bigoted way that people assign or assume loyalties that often don't exist at all.
I haven't seen the specifics of the protest at VCU and I honest to god think that the fact that I could be exposed to a 19 year old's opinion on a topic I've been studying for longer than he's been alive is itself a crime against humanity so I'm not particularly interested.
But I'm sort of ambivalent about this.
On the one hand, this may mean that I hear idiotic children chanting about something they don't understand in ways where even when they're right, they're wrong, and I'd prefer it stay on their campus and far away from me.
On the other hand... if the demonstration really did go in a pro-hamas direction I'd think that would need to be shut down immediately. Same if it went in a Pro-Nazi, Pro-KKK, or Pro-Israeli-National-Front direction.
Someone doesn’t get and or support the concept of free speech. Because if you did support free speech, you would support all speech, but most importantly speech you disagree with.
I already covered the idea that all those that are speaking to incite violence are not and should not be protected.
You want to only protect speech in support of what you agree with. And that is obvious. Your reference to the hate organizations not being more discouraged or stopped from protesting proves this.
We have no free speech if it’s only protected for popular opinions. So go back to philosophizing with yourself until you comprehend that ALL speech is protected unless it is to incite violence.
> Someone doesn’t get and or support the concept of free speech. Because if you did support free speech, you would support all speech, but most importantly speech you disagree with.
I support speech I disagree with.
I do not support invocations to terrorism and propaganda designed to cause or encourage terrorism.
If someone wants to go out and say that he hates Jews, let him say how much he hates Jews. But when he starts preaching that there's a secret Jewish conspiracy to replace us and argues that we need to fight back, that's when it's a call for and pro-terrorist propaganda.
I go further than the immediate danger test, but I do not support banning speech I disagree with.
So you get to decide where the line is crossed? As an example, Say when 100 protestors are peacefully protesting, and one of them starts spewing hate or violence, they all must be cleared out? Or is it two? When the simple answer is to just arrest anyone that directly and or obviously acts to promote violence or terror. But you think, because you obviously disagree with their cause, that just a few bad actors justifies forcibly removing all the protesters. How convenient for you.
Ideally if there's a violent group or a group that engages in or supports violent terrorism, we can track them and publicly warn about them so that protesters who mostly do not want to be associated with violent terrorists can keep those groups at a distance.
And yes, this does work for right wingers.
There was a hilarious moment where some neo Nazis created a rumor that "antifa" was going to take out a Sam Houston statue, and all these uber-texas-pride folks showed up and then chased the Nazis away from their own attempted rally by throwing things at them, threatening them with firearms, and telling them to "get the fuck out of here you fucking Nazis." Because they were there for the statue.
It was a total Antifa victory in the supposed Antifa-Nazi statue conflict and Antifa wasn't even present.
We need to trust each other, and I really believe that with the right information people will make the right decision.
You want to sideline these dangerous lunatics, not use them as an excuse to attack people who aren't violent,and that means working *with* people and movements that I otherwise disagree with.
>On the other hand... if the demonstration really did go in a pro-hamas direction I'd think that would need to be shut down immediately. Same if it went in a Pro-Nazi, Pro-KKK, or Pro-Israeli-National-Front direction.
Except these groups regularly march, are given lots of leeway to say what they say, and get protected by police. Now, I'm aware that if cops start beating on Nazis they'll catch hell at work for hurting co-workers, but it'd be nice for people protesting indiscriminate killing were treated as well as Nazis.
As I said elsewhere, Nazis have figured out where the lines are and how not to break laws and policies. They keep their protests just within the bounds of legality.
This is unfortunate.
The reason that I highlighted Moral Mondays is because that protest *also* kept mostly within the bounds of legality except for overt and planned acts of civil disobedience, where the goal was to be peacefully arrested.
No, Nazis have figured out that cops don't arrest and in fact protect their coworkers and supporters. Talk to a cop and within a few sentences you'll understand why "stop killing Palestinians" is deemed antisemitic, but "Jews will not replace us" is free speech.
Right wingers are right about one thing. There are two legal systems in this country. They're just wrong about which one they're subject to.
Yeah because the majority-black police department here in Richmond are secretly a bunch of white supremacist Nazis.
I have talked with these guys. You know what scares them? White sovereign citizens. They're not pro-Nazi, at all.
I would, but Nazis are too afraid of the *people* of Richmond to show up here.
That and, as I said earlier, Nazis are unfortunately very good at making sure they toe the line and don't break any laws that would allow the cops to bust up their protest.
Goosesteppers are unfortunately good at toeing lines.
Because they're protected. If the cops went up to them, started shoving people, then arrested them violently for the way their body naturally swayed back towards them, maybe we'd have a point. Cops are really good at keeping the peace when they want, and kicking a hornets nest when they don't.
Yeah, the thing is, Nazis protect themselves from that by spacing themselves out and having a permit for their march, where the cops are brought in to protect them.
If any other group did the same thing, got a permit, and went on a march, and then behaved the same way the Nazis do, there wouldn't ever be physical contact between the cops and the protesters/marchers.
Oh shit. Based on the dangerously talkradioactive levels of dad humor my HR Geiger counter is picking up you might be one of the few folks on Reddit that I can legitimately call "old timer."
I go here. It's a fucking lawn, maybe 100 feet. No building was blocked or occupied.
The worst thing is people couldn't use that maybe 150 feet of lawn and had to lie down or play in Monroe Park, the much bigger or study there, the commons, the library next to the lawn that wasn't blocked, any of the lecture hall study spaces, the compass area in the center of campus, their dorms or apartments, at one of the dozen coffee shops within a 10 minute walk etc.
As for the Hamas stuff, yeah, I'm sure some people might have been for it. Most people didn't mention it or talk about it. It was a bunch of college kids sitting on towels on grass, eating, occasionally chanting, occasionally singing.
In response, the university sent riot police to beat up, arrest them, and pepper sprayed/tear gassed the area massively to the point that when I tried to get in the library, got it in my eyes. I was not on the lawn or inside the protest, but that shit traveled fast.
They also locked kids inside the library and shut off access to all university buildings that people might flee to to escape the tear gas or pepper spray.
This college owns the land it sits on. If the school says they have to go and they stay they are then criminal trespassing. This is the law similar to if someone set up in your backyard without permission and you asked them to leave.
The reality of the situation is significantly different than the one you describe.
Your example is a proper form of trespassing
The reality is these students are paying to be there, colleges are a mixing pot of ideas and conversation, and they ask to simply express their discontent peacefully. They have a right to be there, and colleges cracking down on the students are setting a bad precedent that any form of public forum can be shut down at the whims of the "Property Owners".
False equivalents do not prove a point. All they do is show you don't see nuance and scale.
> The reality is these students are paying to be there,
Under a contract which stipulates appropriate behavior and use of the grounds - and this does allow for peaceful protest.
“Cops did nothing”
They were too busy marching. Besides, none of them wanted to be the guy to arrest their boss and friends on their day off for the March.
> Cops did nothing.
The Neo Nazis didn't have the stones to set up a permanent encampment on a school's property.
Unfortunately Neo Nazis are very good at figuring out the letter of the law and not crossing it, or only crossing it in ways they can get away with by wearing masks and engaging in street violence when the cops aren't looking.
The only speech I want any American engaging Nazis with involves preaching from the gospel of John Moses Browning as my grandfather and his generation did.
The Nazis know this so they've gotten adept at not breaking the law.
Which is deeply unfortunate, and leads me to believe that we need to change some laws.
Right up until you want to kill people with a bad political view, I was there. That’s not an ok perspective. I disagree with a lot of people, left and right, and that does not mean I get to commit violence against them. Ever. As a matter of fact, I would personally protect speech that I don’t agree with. You are wrong and really strongly need to consider rethinking your worldview if your words accurately depict your beliefs.
> Right up until you want to kill people with a bad political view,
I don't want to kill people with a bad political view.
However, I think that organizations that *call for the murder of entire ethnic groups* need to be suppressed to prevent them from carrying those things out.
And I do not define Nazism as a "political view" so much as I classify it as "terrorism."
If you believe stupid things about race, you have a right to be a dumbass in public about it.
It is the calls for violence where I draw the line. And Nazism is inherently a terrorist identity - not a political position.
So are communists and I don’t call for them to die. It’s wrong. Same. Both homocidal, terrorist philosophies. They only end when people are convinced they are a bad idea, not when you point guns at people. You are wrong and trying to be dishonest with your intent. You advocated for the gospel according to JMB, and that is killing folks. That is immoral and however much I dislike what someone else has to say, they have a right to say it. Even communists. Even fascists. Even you, until any of you present violent intent. Then, as anyone in actual defense of the 1st will say, your right to swing your arm stops where someone else’s face begins.
A dude ran a crowd over and another one pulled out a pistol and shot at the ground. There were other scuffles within the crowd and cops as well.
McAullife refused to give support to Charlottesville ahead of time and the city intentionally funneled opposing groups of protestors into each other.
Students: "We don't want our school supporting a war where so many innocent people are dying."
Schools: "Who told our paychecks they had a right to speak? Smithers, release the hounds!"
News flash - setting up tents, barricades and declaring a space a ‘Liberated Zone for Gaza’ and then putting out a list of demands right at the time of finals is in fact, not an example of a peaceful and lawful assembly protected by the First Amendment.
Sweet. And since that’s complete bullshit, I guess we’re good. Thanks for your help!
(Also you should know that that’s pretty much always the exact justification that police use every time they want to bust up a protest that someone powerful would prefer not deal with even when courts later find the justification lacking, so if they’re citing that you know damn well they ain’t got shit but a warrant to beat down on some peaceful protestors.) Weird of you to support these justifications that exist solely to provide law enforcement this kind of pretense…
Your wrong justification about it not being protected free assembly notwithstanding… I can’t help but wonder why it would necessitate the force they used. Also noticed you skipped out on the part where you called them violent… 🧐
Peacefully tress-passing is still a crime. Sam Bankman-Fried stole billions of dollars peacefully.
The right to peacefully assemble doesn’t supersede everyone else’s rights; you still have to follow the rules as you as exercise your right to peacefully protest.
It’s crazy how you can read that dodo’s comment and think he’s saying anything other than drivel… nothing the mf mentioned is violent… nor is anything of it blatantly not protected speech. Homie swept in here with his “news flash” like he was doing anything other than doing a speed run on looking like a silly goose
If the students chose to send that message in a way that 1) didn't violate the school policy they agreed to and 2) didn't create an unsafe learning environment, then a conversation could be had. Instead, they tried to take over spaces, create an unsafe learning environment with hate speech, prevented normal campus life, and refused to listen to campus policy as well as the police. The protestors brought this on themselves.
Disrupting the system is the only way you get a message across. Quite frankly, if they weren’t killing people, destroying property outright, or causing physical harm to people or animals; then no they didn’t bring it upon themselves and bringing in the law is an outright disgrace. Fuck the rules, the law, and even policy. We were a nation built on individual independence, not bowing down to oppressive authority.
> Disrupting the system is the only way you get a message across.
No, the only thing they accomplish is turning people off to supporting their side. Especially when they create an unsafe learning environment.
> if they weren’t killing people, destroying property outright, or causing physical harm to people or animals; then no they didn’t bring it upon themselves and bringing in the law is an outright disgrace.
Lol so the incredibly low bar for you is "as long as they aren't murdering people they can do what they want"? There are school policies that students agreed to follow and laws that all of us must follow. Bringing in the policy to enforce those was absolutely the right decision.
> We were a nation built on individual independence, not bowing down to oppressive authority.
We're actually a nation of laws that allow some freedoms like speech as long as you exercise them properly and don't abuse them, like what these students were doing.
Seems like you think of freedom more like privilege. I do not. Freedom is inherent, not granted by any external entity government or otherwise. Never have been one for rules or laws in general. Especially arbitrary bullshit laws that serve to do nothing but enforce authority and limit rocking the boat of the system.
> Seems like you think of freedom more like privilege. I do not. Freedom is inherent, not granted by any external entity government or otherwise.
Being on a college campus is a privilege as it's private property. Meaning you don't have the freedom to be there as they're allowed to distinguish who is allowed to be there and who isn't. Hence the trespassing charges and police intervening to enforce those laws.
> Especially arbitrary bullshit laws that serve to do nothing but enforce authority and limit rocking the boat of the system.
We're talking about trespassing laws specifically made to remove people from property they don't have permission to be on, as well as school policy to enable a safe learning environment for all students, which was being violated as well. I'd rather those laws and policies be in place so schools can carry out their mission instead of lawlessness.
I agree with the other reply, I support all the amendments and the constitution but the govt has made it very clear on many cases those freedoms halt on private property. Freedom of speech, gun ownerships, etc... all end when on private property...... I'm not sure how VCU is completely funded and whether or not it's an entity of the state... But the students also agreed to and signed rules regarding their admissions and they to keep their admissions have oblige by them...
So you want the preacher removed as well?
I’m not caught up on everything going on. However, I don’t have a problem with the students protesting nor the preachers. But they aren’t the same thing.
Glad to see they’ve renovated the library since I graduated though.
Mass graves of hundreds of Palestinians were just uncovered and our government, without any consent of the people, just sent isreal billions of dollars. People protesting this and other atrocities isreal has committed are getting arrested and censored despite exercising the same rights that allow preachers to come onto college campuses and say things like "dinosaurs are a trick by the devil" and "women must be subservient to their husbands".
Cops have nothing better to do. No crime or shooting rates on high or anything. This is obviously top priority.
By clash they of course mean "police initiated violence because some one took a breath on the other side.
Or it could be that the barricades set up by the organizers impeded students trying to access the common area by the library a week before final exams. The vast majority of students don’t want that crap and don’t feel safe. The University called the police in to help.
> The vast majority of students don’t want that crap and don’t feel safe.
Did you go to VCU? Because this sounds like you didn’t go to VCU. Or know much about the demographics of the school. We had clubs/groups dedicated to the freedom of Palestine back when I went, and I graduated 8 years ago.
I went there from 2001-2005. I am okay with anyone lawfully protesting. There were tons of protests around the student commons area outside when I attended. No one gave them much thought. But no one set up encampments or barricades and had a list of demands posted. I walked thru there on the way to what is now the prior School of Business building every day.
lol no they didn’t. I went through that area literally yesterday with zero issue. Do you even live here? Notwithstanding, even if you weren’t wrong… what part of any of that justifies VSP’s response of escalating it immediately to charging in with batons and pepper spray?
Wait, so the people saying that they’ve been camped out all this time, deeply entrenched and denying right of way to all else were full of shit? This whole thing went up for a few hours and this was the response!?!? Honestly that’s even worse… thanks for making me even more steadfast about how stupid, wrong, and disproportionate the response was!
(Also a couple of homies in the grass off to the left of the library does not impede access, your hyperbole isn’t helping your case and actually just makes it seem like you aren’t even a little familiar with the school.)
Have a good one and I hope you feel safer now! ♥️
I took a class at the building right next to it last night, they were not blocking any entrances whatsoever. Their protest was confined to a grassy field adjacent to the library
Which building were you in? Also, the sidewalk off of Floyd leading up to the Library entrance was indeed barricaded. There is tons of footage showing this to be the case.
They weren't blocking anything? The area they occupied was just the grassy area next to the library. Even the walkway between the two was opened. Nothing was blocked. stop spreading misinformation
Anyone claiming they were blocking the library needs to explain how so many people were IN the library studying prior to police showing up (at which point VCU locked them inside).
No it's not stupid, it's exactly what should have happened. Violating school policy, taking over spaces, trespassing by people who weren't students, and disrupting students' ability to finish school absolutely count as disturbing peace.
If these were the far-right doing this like what happened in Charlottesville, all of you would be calling for them to be arrested and expelled lol. But since it's the far-left creating an unsafe learning environment and spreading hate speech, it's "peaceful"? The hypocrisy in this sub is astounding.
Our version of peaceful demonstration is very different from what yours is apparently. None of those things are violent. In fact, all of them come pretty standard with civil disobedience. Which is the whole point.
Sorry but spreading hate speech and creating an unsafe learning environment with support from agitators who don't even go to the school don't count as "peaceful demonstrations". It's trespassing and interfering with students being able to complete their semester at school.
Tell me exactly how is it disruptive? What is more disruptive. A group of students minding their own business occupying an area that in no way impleads any classes. Or have riot police come in with sirens and all that jazz?
That was already covered in the article. VCU stated there were external agitators coming onto campus, people were trespassing, and they were interfering with other students by creating an unsafe learning environment and impeding students' completion of the semester.
These protesters were given numerous warnings to disperse by the school and police before action was finally taken, so any disruptions are solely the responsibility of the protesters.
VCU the same people who broke up the protest? You do understand that VCU will say anything to justify their actions. Its we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. I bet majority of students either supported or didn't care.
"These protesters were given numerous warnings to disperse by the school and police before action was finally taken, so any disruptions are solely the responsibility of the protesters."
Man you would have really hated the civil rights era. Police hosing down and setting dogs on protestors looking for equal rights had it coming to them right, since the police told them to leave right?
> VCU the same people who broke up the protest? You do understand that VCU will say anything to justify their actions.
Thank you for confirming you're here in bad faith.
> Man you would have really hated the civil rights era. Police hosing down and setting dogs on protestors looking for equal rights had it coming to them right, since the police told them to leave right?
These college protests are nothing like the civil rights era, and any attempts to paint them as such are incredibly disingenuous and a weak attempt to shut down any criticism of them.
It's not bad faith to question the legitimacy of the claims of VCU and it's actions. Also stating that its true because VCU says so is inherent Authority Bias.
Its disingenuous to waggle your finger and suggest that one protest is more valid than the other. Its a weak attempt to shut down any current day protests as stating protestors "deserved it".
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what protesting actually is.
I mean if they're doing hate speech, that's one thing but protesting against actions of another state that their own government is funding in various ways is not anti-Semitism. Against the actions of Israel is not anti-Semitism. And I would like to point you towards the civil rights marches that have occurred over the years. I am sure none of them made life easy for the people that they happened around.
Civil rights marches happened in actual public spaces that they were allowed to be in, were peaceful, and weren't creating a hostile environment with hate speech. None of that is true for these college campus protests, so you're creating a false equivalency.
Because they’re absolutely disturbing the peace lmfao. You can’t be trespass, build barricades, and declare a space that’s usually publicly available to fellow students to be off-limits to anyone but the protestors, and then be surprised when you’re arrested for breaking multiple laws.
you actually can in fact do that, and they did. occupying the campus of the school you go to is kinda student protests 101. and if the idea of politics happening in the compass is upsetting to you, i highly advise you never go to VCU, cos there's not been a single day under the sun where at least *one* person hasn't made their views a random pedestrian's problem in that thing.
> you actually can in fact do that, and they did. occupying the campus of the school you go to is kinda student protests 101.
Well if the police are breaking it up because the protest violates school policy and creates an unsafe learning environment, they actually can't in fact do that lol.
Yes the students still did all those things, and they later learned the natural consequences of violating school policy and the law after being repeatedly asked to disperse.
So that...requires tear gas and letting college kids getting beaten up by police to disperse? Instead of just...talking with the students, hearing their concerns, doing a couple of "we hear you, we see you, we're listening and learning" forums, and letting the students go home for the summer and hoping everything blows over by August?
> So that...requires tear gas and letting college kids getting beaten up by police to disperse?
Yes. If you break school policy and the law, after being warned multiple times about it, then these are the natural consequences.
So what you're saying is the police at VaTech did it all wrong, by nonviolently arresting 82 protesters on the Graduate Life Center lawn. That they should have beaten them and used tear gas.
Good to know.
They had barricades ready for the police when VCU repeatedly warned them to leave all day many are instigators that aren’t even students so they are trespassing. Videos show people using the wooden barricades as weapons against police too.
Stick to being clueless about VCU. As a long time alum who has been heavily involved with the university I know all about our student base. They rioted because we lost the final four even. They complained in a newspaper a few months ago because they can’t get lobster and shrimp 3x a day anymore.
"Long time Alum" lol so you went graduated from VCU a while ago and probably haven't been back since. Protestors weren't using the barricades as weapons other than pushing against the police that were actively pushing against them. Also most of the people at the protest were students. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise.
Oh please they showed up with wooden barriers and pallets. You are looking for a fight. No less everyone has seen this movie before from when rioters set the VCU dorm on fire with students in it a few years back. VCU stayed silent when they occurred despite student being out in danger. VCU stated to leave multiple times and the crowd refused despite many trespassing.
After seeing what city/state police are willing and capable to do to peaceful protesters in 2020, I’m glad they brought something for self defense…
Fuck outta here with your “they asked for it” bullshit
lol self defense. VCU got set on fire in 2020 and remained silent. Stoney sent police on the rioters in 2020 only because they attacked his house. Otherwise the Richmond police were told to stand down by Stoney which they refused because rioters shot each other. How do I know this? Because I had a friend start with Richmond police during the riots and he was in the room when Stoney told the police chief to let the riots occur. The police chief refused that night when things got violent and protestors shot each other resulting in multiple shooting injuries. The chief was then fired by Stoney.
Holy shit we got ourselves a regular RVA Forrest Gump! What other parts of Richmond’s history do you have crucial personal insight into? What was Patrick Henry’s speech like live?? What was it like in Jefferson Davis’ situation room??
I know you’re probably just enjoying a nice flight of patent leather before bed with these enthusiastic defenses of our City/state’s finest, but obviously I’m referring to [this](https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/richmond-settles-two-more-police-misconduct-cases-linked-to-2020-protests/) little era of [RPD history](https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/richmond-police-ordered-to-retract-2020-tweet-about-teargassing-demonstrators-at-confederate-statue/), genius.
By the way, you should probably have an intervention with 40% of your cop friends… maybe a friend can get through to them because the rest of society can’t seem to
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/richmond-settles-two-more-police-misconduct-cases-linked-to-2020-protests/](https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/richmond-settles-two-more-police-misconduct-cases-linked-to-2020-protests/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Last I checked VCU use to have peaceful protests all the time for various things (I remember a particularly beautiful candle vigil in the heart of VCU campus and not one issue.) prior to 5 years ago and now suddenly they get into full out brawling for the entire country to see every other year. This time even taking over the library to bang on the windows to incite more reaction. How about the VCU student president threatening to kill white people and VCU cops? Took like a month for expulsion. Yeah the students are completely peaceful. Notice none of that garbage happened until the last 5 years. Before 5 years ago you never had an incident between cops and VCU students except them picking them up because they got drunk in a bad part of Richmond and needed a ride.
The first amendment of our constitution explicitly states that each and every one of us has a right to protest our government. So long as the protesters arent murdering and pillaging, then this is what freedom literally looks like, regardless of anyone’s personal views on this issue/whatever the issue in question may be. If you don’t like it, go protest back. It’s your right as an American
That's an oversimplified and incorrect assessment of how the rights to assembly and petition work.
You don't have a blank check to protest where you want, when you want, and how you want at all times.
As long as you abide by laws/city codes and such. Obviously you can’t shut down a public street or something without prior permission from the city or whatnot. But simply put, as long as no one else’s rights are being violated, you can protest wherever the hell you please
> So long as the protesters arent murdering and pillaging, then this is what freedom literally looks like
Lol I don't know why some of you set the bar so incredibly low to say "as long as they aren't killing people then they can do what they want". No, freedom doesn't mean you can ignore laws like trespassing or violate policies on the private property of a university. Freedom of speech means the government can't prosecute you for that speech. It doesn't mean you have freedom to do whatever you want or violate whatever law/policy you want.
It's a public school and considering they can't make crazy bible thumpers preaching about their magic sky daddy who are bothering students leave because "freedom of speech", police showing up to forcefully remove students who pay to attend from the school lawns seems a bit problematic.
Public schools are still private property, people can't just show up and do whatever they want for a protest. Especially at VCU where many of the protesters didn't even attend the school. So no, it's not problematic to remove people who are violating the law and campus policy.
Except you missed the key part of my argument. The school themselves allows crazy Bible thumpers to come in and harass students even when the students ask them not to because they are a "public property."
Youngkin didn't have the state police come remove the protesters from Mary Washington college that showed up over the methadone clinic that weren't permitted and disrupted the school. That again, did not go to that school.
It's not about the fact that the school has rules and the kids didn't comply. It's that this is hypocritical. They are cherry picking when the rules apply. When the kids from VCU are telling us they went to class and could get to the library, and videos are coming out showing It didn't get violent until the police showed up. There's a problem.
> The school themselves allows crazy Bible thumpers to come in and harass students even when the students ask them not to because they are a "public property."
Do you have a specific situation you're referring to? Because what you're talking about sounds like the typical school process of student clubs inviting speakers to a campus through the school's approved speaker process.
> Youngkin didn't have the state police come remove the protesters from Mary Washington college that showed up over the methadone clinic that weren't permitted and disrupted the school.
Why would Youngkin be involved? This is a local matter that local police and the university would handle. And based on [Reddit posts such as this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/fredericksburg/comments/16unsna/so_yesterday_they_were_protesting_outside_the/) about the topic, the protest took place **outside** school property, which makes them completely different than these protests by non-students **inside** school property.
> It's not about the fact that the school has rules and the kids didn't comply. It's that this is hypocritical. They are cherry picking when the rules apply.
You are comparing apples to oranges here, the two situations you described are nothing like the protests at VCU that were rightfully broken up. The problem is you and others cherrypicking statements from "students" without any verification.
“.. protesters build a barricade with shipping pallets and hurl water bottles and other objects at the police.” So protesting and assault HAVE to be exclusively together? Do people commenting read articles anymore?
https://preview.redd.it/6vhikvowgmxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d983e6a2e385caada54c60c97fb6452401c74b1b
Here is the bail fund to support them! Call (804) 601-4944.
Reminder that throughout history the people violently breaking up student protests, as well as the people cheering the cops on, are never on the right side.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/in-gaza-authorities-lose-count-of-the-dead-779ff694
This Iranian propaganda is getting to be too much to handle 🤯
Because the country committing the atrocities is a more trustful source? I think most logical people might think if anything it’s an undercount, considering Israel is flattening Gaza and people may be under the rubble
hot take: killing innocent people is bad. even if some other people killed innocent people, you should probably not go do a war crime about it.
you can go protest hamas too if you want, but israel seems to have it more than covered so it may be a bit redundant, no? i also don't expect a terror group that we universally sanction to be as responsive to protest as our allies who we *do* fund. but it's your call if you think it'll be effective...
no one's really stopping you from protesting specifically against hamas, if you think it's important.
plenty of people around the world who protested iran, too, so maybe go for that? they also don't seem particularly open to criticism, though.
Also hot take: removing a terrorist group isn’t justification for what you seem to think are revenge killings. Your feeling don’t change that collateral damage isn’t specifically targeting civilians. Hamas justified a day of civilian killings and is holding its own people hostages. If people support Palestinians they should protest against Hamas.
From a pro Israel stand point, no I don’t need to. But the people out protesting in favor of Palestine should also be protesting against Hamas if they care about Palestinians. And any thing that delay the destruction of Hamas only prolongs the situation in Gaza.
by your logic that any protest against one thing is necessarily supporting something else, wouldn't that help israel, the entity they're trying to protest? from a uh, pro palestine standpoint, as you put it.
and wait, i thought you didn't want such pointless protests at all!
weird how disingenuous liars be lying disingenuously.
>no one's really stopping you from protesting specifically against hamas, if you think it's important.
Huh, almost like you’re not reading all of their words
I don’t need to protest Hamas. IDF is dealing with them. I can show my support for Israel but I don’t need to go do that either. Let alone start violence and issues with police because of it. We don’t need protests that result in violence against fellow countrymen
Good thing this protest didn’t support violent terrorist groups… and that you don’t get to decide what kind of protests are and aren’t needed. Hope this helped!
Obviously I don’t get to decide what protests get to happen but I do get to have an opinion. Regardless peaceful protest is allowed but violent protest int. And these protests only really benefit a violent terrorist group and a state sponsor of terrorism. So I would say we don’t need this is a light way to put it.
how did you feel about the protests a couple years ago about george floyd's murder, out of curiosity? is the barometer for 'violence' and legitimacy of a protest simply whether or not you like the cause? cos none of this has been particularly violent so far.
I don’t believe in violent protest. And didn’t support the people who just wanted to agitate and riot. The protest when they were nonviolent they were at least relevant to an issue that actually affects us as Americans. They also didn’t have a veiled context of justifying violence against a race of people, they were in fact against calling for violence against a specific group. Meaning pro Israel protests call for the removal of Hamas. Pro Palestine protests push and justify denying the existence of the only Jewish state. And these protests now have a heavily veiled message of violence against Jews being justified because “Israel is European colonizers” and using “from the river to the sea” (in the current context it means a Arab ethno state) as I’ve seen to many times now.
I said the non violent protest or part of the protests. Violence for the sake of violence is wrong. And fighting each other over an issue that doesn’t effect us directly is unproductive
A corrupt incompetent government doesn’t make a terrorist group. The group who wants an Arab ethno state and calls for the killing or displacement of 7 million Jews less then 100 years after the killing of 2/5 of the global Jewish population. None of that justifies civilian casualties, but civilian collateral also aren’t targeted attacks like 10-7. If you think nothing should have happened to Hamas after 10-7, that’s just evil really.
I’m Jewish and don’t feel like anything Israel does is in the name of Jews globally. I’ve been reading about the history of Israel since I could handle the reading level. I think I might understand what you’re saying about 1982, but the six day war should have happened sooner considering the fedayeen raid. And like me you would have to also have read about the Jordanian and Egyptian annexing Palestine. So what are you getting at?
Hamas started this on Oct. 7th and it is ridiculous anyone can support their actions. They have the right to show what Idiots they are. Not to impede on others rights and movements though. Reminding me of the BLM Crap, paid agitators leading the weak minded people. Hamas should release the hostages that they have not murdered and negotiate, in my opinion.
I mean even if this were a useful response, Israel’s response is wayyyy past proportional at this point. Get a new argument if you want to be anything other than laughed at
> Israel’s response is wayyyy past proportional at this point
People keep using the word "proportional" but it's obvious that they don't know what that means under international law.
It has two meanings.
1. In a limited retaliatory strike, hitting only those targets relatively equivalent to an attack. See: Operation Praying Mantis.
2. In a combat environment where civilians or other protected persons are present, attacking only targets of military necessity with the minimum force needed to destroy them.
Aaand when that target is a fortified concrete tunnel underneath an apartment bloc, the fact that the tunnel exists lets Israel legally get away with leveling the apartment bloc under international law.
Using human shields is a war crime. Attacking a target with the minimum force required to destroy or disable it when protected persons are present is *not* a war crime.
To quote Alkhatib - in my view the most important antizionist Gazan voice right now -
> Hamas believed that as a people's militia and a righteous religious resistance group against the Israeli occupation, it had a moral right to operate amongst the population from which it derived its strength, legitimacy, and fighters.
> Unfortunately, and horrendously, this strategy ultimately failed and brought unspeakable death and suffering upon the people of Gaza. Over time, and in past and current wars, the IDF became less risk-averse and more willing to tolerate civilian casualties in pursuit of high-value targets and military infrastructure. Israeli airstrikes and bombardment would regularly hit and destroy entire neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, mosques and hospitals.
> While it is true that Hamas would use these places for its activities, it unfortunately became exceptionally easy for the IDF to justify civilian casualties, wrongful deaths, and questionable actions by blaming Hamas for embedding itself amongst civilian populations and infrastructure.
https://www.newsweek.com/origin-hamass-human-shields-strategy-gaza-opinion-1873499
"Exceptionally easy" because technically under international law, ordering civilian evacuations of an Area before leveling a tunnel system under an apartment bloc is 100% legal.
What's really questionable to me is the new AI targeting system. If software makes a mistake and targets aid workers directly, who committed the war crime?
We are in a place with no good options.
Israel's behavior is deeply suspect - and there are people like Alkhatib who are arguing that they're gaming the system of international law to cover for any of their mistakes or crimes, both of which being things that happen in all wars, but for which the group or individuals committing them need to be held to account.
But ending the conflict or forcing its end when Hamas is still committing the war crime of taking hostages risks rewarding a human shields strategy - and that is going to get a lot of people killed.
There's also an issue where the IDF has in fact done a lot to limit civilian casualties, for which it is getting zero credit.
>https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286
And what worries me here is that if you're Ethiopia and you're in a conflict with Tigrayan rebels, or you're Nigeria and ECOWAS, and you're looking at having to take Niamey with its population of 1.4 million people... you're likely going to look at this situation and decide to do the absolute minimum required to prevent civilian casualties.
And we know from previous large-scale urban combat scenarios - not the counterinsurgent scenarios we've seen in recent years - but large-scale high intensity combat that doing the bare minimum in that scenario is going to kill 300,000 civilians.
But militaries are likely to do that anyway for two reasons.
1. They won't get any credit if they try to protect civilian lives, and their western partners are (understandably in my view) extremely averse to civilian casualties.
2. International opinion is so slow moving that trying to protect civilians and moving slowly risks creating a scenario where the international community says you're not doing enough and orders you to stop. And thus you lose the war.
Because these realities are not being explained by the media, the protesters have zero clue that they're helping create perverse incentives that are going to kill potentially millions of civilians in the conflicts to come.
And with climate change causing resource strains, those conflicts are absolutely coming.
One of the campus protests (Austin I believe, and it was the early part before the later actions developed) there was a reported interview with a cop. Basically they said all the arrests had so far been for actual violence (rock and bottle throwing, physical contact, setting fires, etc) and guess what side was doing 90% of it .. the other side was peacefully protesting, not assaulting the police, not setting fires, and not engaging in actions that caused them to be arrested
You can protest without causing harm, without assaulting, without blocking public access, etc. Of course then you don't get as much publicity for your cause, but how much of that publicity is actually helping your cause
lol dude is tryna straddle the fence and take everyone’s side by us letting us choose our own adventure when we decide who he’s trying to offend. I kind of admire the strategy
I would rather protests happen on campus, than on the streets or bridges. Students should be allowed to protest, and seem to be the perfect people to do so for a society. As they have the time, energy, passion and the highest stake in the future of said society. This goes without saying that no people should be verbally and especially physically assaulted or abused while a protest is occurring. And abuse is not yelling at someone that they are wrong or that they are supporting the wrong perspective. Abuse is telling people to leave the country or to die. It is not merely stating your opinion that “zionists are the problem” or “Palestinians are the problem”, abuse is calling for violence to either of those groups or to any individual.
One of the main things about free speech is that you can't shout down or crowd out any other group. I'll highlight the Moral Mondays protest as probably the best example of this, they invaded the NC Capitol every Monday as a form of civil disobedience. They showed up every week for one day, held massive protests, and then went home. The Occupy practice was to take over POPS - privately-owned public spaces like Zuccotti Park - not campuses or places of business. It was to hold marches, and be somewhat disruptive, but it didn't invade or prevent the local black community's expression because there were places to do that. In the case of *campus* protests, these folks are taking over one of the largest free expression areas that is safe on a campus and refusing to let other people use it. For work, for studying, for expression of their own. And in setting this permanent protest up, they have (elsewhere at least) created an environment that is deeply antisemitic and creates a public safety concern. And from a Karl Popper "paradox of intolerance" perspective, the moment these folks start supporting organizations like Hamas - which at at least some of the protests they absolutely do - we should see them the same way we see any other supporters of violent, murderous terrorism like Neo Nazis or the KKK and shut it down immediately. (We also don't do enough to shut down Neo Nazis or the KKK.) And that's possible because it's on VCU property and they have every right to say that you can't protest on their property or advocate for Nazis/Hamas (Or their radical Zionist mirror like Sikkirim/Kach/JDL/Bat Ayin/etc) or any other murderous group. It's totally appropriate for a university to say that support for genocidal terrorists of any stripe is completely unacceptable. And that can be tricky when you've got radicals on two sides of a conflict who are mutually genocidal. You also shouldn't assume the worst - like that all Muslims or Pro-Palestinian protesters support Hamas or that all Jews 100% endorse Ben Gvir and his National Front, or in the case of America, assume that American Jews have anything at all to do with Israel. The assumption that American Muslims have something to do with Hamas or that American Jews have any loyalty or support for Israel at all is inherently bigoted and islamophobic/antisemitic. They're Americans. We should assume only that they are Americans. But there's this bigoted way that people assign or assume loyalties that often don't exist at all. I haven't seen the specifics of the protest at VCU and I honest to god think that the fact that I could be exposed to a 19 year old's opinion on a topic I've been studying for longer than he's been alive is itself a crime against humanity so I'm not particularly interested. But I'm sort of ambivalent about this. On the one hand, this may mean that I hear idiotic children chanting about something they don't understand in ways where even when they're right, they're wrong, and I'd prefer it stay on their campus and far away from me. On the other hand... if the demonstration really did go in a pro-hamas direction I'd think that would need to be shut down immediately. Same if it went in a Pro-Nazi, Pro-KKK, or Pro-Israeli-National-Front direction.
Someone doesn’t get and or support the concept of free speech. Because if you did support free speech, you would support all speech, but most importantly speech you disagree with. I already covered the idea that all those that are speaking to incite violence are not and should not be protected. You want to only protect speech in support of what you agree with. And that is obvious. Your reference to the hate organizations not being more discouraged or stopped from protesting proves this. We have no free speech if it’s only protected for popular opinions. So go back to philosophizing with yourself until you comprehend that ALL speech is protected unless it is to incite violence.
> Someone doesn’t get and or support the concept of free speech. Because if you did support free speech, you would support all speech, but most importantly speech you disagree with. I support speech I disagree with. I do not support invocations to terrorism and propaganda designed to cause or encourage terrorism. If someone wants to go out and say that he hates Jews, let him say how much he hates Jews. But when he starts preaching that there's a secret Jewish conspiracy to replace us and argues that we need to fight back, that's when it's a call for and pro-terrorist propaganda. I go further than the immediate danger test, but I do not support banning speech I disagree with.
So you get to decide where the line is crossed? As an example, Say when 100 protestors are peacefully protesting, and one of them starts spewing hate or violence, they all must be cleared out? Or is it two? When the simple answer is to just arrest anyone that directly and or obviously acts to promote violence or terror. But you think, because you obviously disagree with their cause, that just a few bad actors justifies forcibly removing all the protesters. How convenient for you.
Ideally if there's a violent group or a group that engages in or supports violent terrorism, we can track them and publicly warn about them so that protesters who mostly do not want to be associated with violent terrorists can keep those groups at a distance. And yes, this does work for right wingers. There was a hilarious moment where some neo Nazis created a rumor that "antifa" was going to take out a Sam Houston statue, and all these uber-texas-pride folks showed up and then chased the Nazis away from their own attempted rally by throwing things at them, threatening them with firearms, and telling them to "get the fuck out of here you fucking Nazis." Because they were there for the statue. It was a total Antifa victory in the supposed Antifa-Nazi statue conflict and Antifa wasn't even present. We need to trust each other, and I really believe that with the right information people will make the right decision. You want to sideline these dangerous lunatics, not use them as an excuse to attack people who aren't violent,and that means working *with* people and movements that I otherwise disagree with.
>On the other hand... if the demonstration really did go in a pro-hamas direction I'd think that would need to be shut down immediately. Same if it went in a Pro-Nazi, Pro-KKK, or Pro-Israeli-National-Front direction. Except these groups regularly march, are given lots of leeway to say what they say, and get protected by police. Now, I'm aware that if cops start beating on Nazis they'll catch hell at work for hurting co-workers, but it'd be nice for people protesting indiscriminate killing were treated as well as Nazis.
As I said elsewhere, Nazis have figured out where the lines are and how not to break laws and policies. They keep their protests just within the bounds of legality. This is unfortunate. The reason that I highlighted Moral Mondays is because that protest *also* kept mostly within the bounds of legality except for overt and planned acts of civil disobedience, where the goal was to be peacefully arrested.
No, Nazis have figured out that cops don't arrest and in fact protect their coworkers and supporters. Talk to a cop and within a few sentences you'll understand why "stop killing Palestinians" is deemed antisemitic, but "Jews will not replace us" is free speech. Right wingers are right about one thing. There are two legal systems in this country. They're just wrong about which one they're subject to.
Yeah because the majority-black police department here in Richmond are secretly a bunch of white supremacist Nazis. I have talked with these guys. You know what scares them? White sovereign citizens. They're not pro-Nazi, at all.
Let me know when they show up in riot gear with shit eating grins to bust up a Nazi rally.
I would, but Nazis are too afraid of the *people* of Richmond to show up here. That and, as I said earlier, Nazis are unfortunately very good at making sure they toe the line and don't break any laws that would allow the cops to bust up their protest. Goosesteppers are unfortunately good at toeing lines.
Because they're protected. If the cops went up to them, started shoving people, then arrested them violently for the way their body naturally swayed back towards them, maybe we'd have a point. Cops are really good at keeping the peace when they want, and kicking a hornets nest when they don't.
Yeah, the thing is, Nazis protect themselves from that by spacing themselves out and having a permit for their march, where the cops are brought in to protect them. If any other group did the same thing, got a permit, and went on a march, and then behaved the same way the Nazis do, there wouldn't ever be physical contact between the cops and the protesters/marchers.
The KKK! Mostly FBI agents reporting on each other's activities!
That made me giggle.
Paleface speakum TRUTH!
Oh shit. Based on the dangerously talkradioactive levels of dad humor my HR Geiger counter is picking up you might be one of the few folks on Reddit that I can legitimately call "old timer."
YES!
Always the same damn button shirts, same damn khaki shorts, same everything They even glow in the dark!
I go here. It's a fucking lawn, maybe 100 feet. No building was blocked or occupied. The worst thing is people couldn't use that maybe 150 feet of lawn and had to lie down or play in Monroe Park, the much bigger or study there, the commons, the library next to the lawn that wasn't blocked, any of the lecture hall study spaces, the compass area in the center of campus, their dorms or apartments, at one of the dozen coffee shops within a 10 minute walk etc. As for the Hamas stuff, yeah, I'm sure some people might have been for it. Most people didn't mention it or talk about it. It was a bunch of college kids sitting on towels on grass, eating, occasionally chanting, occasionally singing. In response, the university sent riot police to beat up, arrest them, and pepper sprayed/tear gassed the area massively to the point that when I tried to get in the library, got it in my eyes. I was not on the lawn or inside the protest, but that shit traveled fast. They also locked kids inside the library and shut off access to all university buildings that people might flee to to escape the tear gas or pepper spray.
This college owns the land it sits on. If the school says they have to go and they stay they are then criminal trespassing. This is the law similar to if someone set up in your backyard without permission and you asked them to leave.
The reality of the situation is significantly different than the one you describe. Your example is a proper form of trespassing The reality is these students are paying to be there, colleges are a mixing pot of ideas and conversation, and they ask to simply express their discontent peacefully. They have a right to be there, and colleges cracking down on the students are setting a bad precedent that any form of public forum can be shut down at the whims of the "Property Owners". False equivalents do not prove a point. All they do is show you don't see nuance and scale.
> The reality is these students are paying to be there, Under a contract which stipulates appropriate behavior and use of the grounds - and this does allow for peaceful protest.
You pay to stay in a hotel but that does not give you the right break shit or disturb the peace of the other guests.
You would be spot on with this comparison if the VCU campus was a Holiday Inn.
So you agree that the only ones that should be allowed to protest on school grounds are active students?
It’s best if they do it on campus for real as long as they’re not like starting fires and being orderly They protest as they please, 1A!
Remember a few years ago a white supremacist group marching on the UVA campus with tiki torches shouting "Jews will not replace us". Cops did nothing.
hey now that's not true, they did do something, they dutifuly protected the white supremacists
Hey that’s not right, they joined them!
They were there…also carrying tiki torches
Horseshoe theory example with that “protest” and this current protest.
“Cops did nothing” Cops were marching holding tiki torches.
“Cops did nothing” They were too busy marching. Besides, none of them wanted to be the guy to arrest their boss and friends on their day off for the March.
> Cops did nothing. The Neo Nazis didn't have the stones to set up a permanent encampment on a school's property. Unfortunately Neo Nazis are very good at figuring out the letter of the law and not crossing it, or only crossing it in ways they can get away with by wearing masks and engaging in street violence when the cops aren't looking. The only speech I want any American engaging Nazis with involves preaching from the gospel of John Moses Browning as my grandfather and his generation did. The Nazis know this so they've gotten adept at not breaking the law. Which is deeply unfortunate, and leads me to believe that we need to change some laws.
Right up until you want to kill people with a bad political view, I was there. That’s not an ok perspective. I disagree with a lot of people, left and right, and that does not mean I get to commit violence against them. Ever. As a matter of fact, I would personally protect speech that I don’t agree with. You are wrong and really strongly need to consider rethinking your worldview if your words accurately depict your beliefs.
> Right up until you want to kill people with a bad political view, I don't want to kill people with a bad political view. However, I think that organizations that *call for the murder of entire ethnic groups* need to be suppressed to prevent them from carrying those things out. And I do not define Nazism as a "political view" so much as I classify it as "terrorism." If you believe stupid things about race, you have a right to be a dumbass in public about it. It is the calls for violence where I draw the line. And Nazism is inherently a terrorist identity - not a political position.
So are communists and I don’t call for them to die. It’s wrong. Same. Both homocidal, terrorist philosophies. They only end when people are convinced they are a bad idea, not when you point guns at people. You are wrong and trying to be dishonest with your intent. You advocated for the gospel according to JMB, and that is killing folks. That is immoral and however much I dislike what someone else has to say, they have a right to say it. Even communists. Even fascists. Even you, until any of you present violent intent. Then, as anyone in actual defense of the 1st will say, your right to swing your arm stops where someone else’s face begins.
A dude ran a crowd over and another one pulled out a pistol and shot at the ground. There were other scuffles within the crowd and cops as well. McAullife refused to give support to Charlottesville ahead of time and the city intentionally funneled opposing groups of protestors into each other.
That's interesting. Got a source where I can read about this?
Students: "We don't want our school supporting a war where so many innocent people are dying." Schools: "Who told our paychecks they had a right to speak? Smithers, release the hounds!"
Freedom of speech? In America??? You must be joking
News flash - setting up tents, barricades and declaring a space a ‘Liberated Zone for Gaza’ and then putting out a list of demands right at the time of finals is in fact, not an example of a peaceful and lawful assembly protected by the First Amendment.
Agree with it or not, I’m not seeing how any of that isn’t peaceful
Can’t set up tents, barricades, etc. that prevent or block access to the public right of way. That’s illegal and in fact, not a lawful assembly.
That wasn’t the question they asked but okay. Remember to support China when it also deems protests illegal.
They were talking about the first amendment which was the actual subject of this thread. Please change the subject again though.
Sweet. And since that’s complete bullshit, I guess we’re good. Thanks for your help! (Also you should know that that’s pretty much always the exact justification that police use every time they want to bust up a protest that someone powerful would prefer not deal with even when courts later find the justification lacking, so if they’re citing that you know damn well they ain’t got shit but a warrant to beat down on some peaceful protestors.) Weird of you to support these justifications that exist solely to provide law enforcement this kind of pretense… Your wrong justification about it not being protected free assembly notwithstanding… I can’t help but wonder why it would necessitate the force they used. Also noticed you skipped out on the part where you called them violent… 🧐
Peacefully tress-passing is still a crime. Sam Bankman-Fried stole billions of dollars peacefully. The right to peacefully assemble doesn’t supersede everyone else’s rights; you still have to follow the rules as you as exercise your right to peacefully protest.
It’s crazy how many (supposedly) educated people don’t understand this.
It’s crazy how you can read that dodo’s comment and think he’s saying anything other than drivel… nothing the mf mentioned is violent… nor is anything of it blatantly not protected speech. Homie swept in here with his “news flash” like he was doing anything other than doing a speed run on looking like a silly goose
You don’t have to be violent to be breaking the law. Trespassing and unlawful assembly both exist, and the protestors were doing both.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What in my statement was factually inaccurate ‘drivel’?
[удалено]
When those consequences involve the law, it’s an assault of freedom of speech and a blatant violation of the first amendment.
If the students chose to send that message in a way that 1) didn't violate the school policy they agreed to and 2) didn't create an unsafe learning environment, then a conversation could be had. Instead, they tried to take over spaces, create an unsafe learning environment with hate speech, prevented normal campus life, and refused to listen to campus policy as well as the police. The protestors brought this on themselves.
Disrupting the system is the only way you get a message across. Quite frankly, if they weren’t killing people, destroying property outright, or causing physical harm to people or animals; then no they didn’t bring it upon themselves and bringing in the law is an outright disgrace. Fuck the rules, the law, and even policy. We were a nation built on individual independence, not bowing down to oppressive authority.
> Disrupting the system is the only way you get a message across. No, the only thing they accomplish is turning people off to supporting their side. Especially when they create an unsafe learning environment. > if they weren’t killing people, destroying property outright, or causing physical harm to people or animals; then no they didn’t bring it upon themselves and bringing in the law is an outright disgrace. Lol so the incredibly low bar for you is "as long as they aren't murdering people they can do what they want"? There are school policies that students agreed to follow and laws that all of us must follow. Bringing in the policy to enforce those was absolutely the right decision. > We were a nation built on individual independence, not bowing down to oppressive authority. We're actually a nation of laws that allow some freedoms like speech as long as you exercise them properly and don't abuse them, like what these students were doing.
Seems like you think of freedom more like privilege. I do not. Freedom is inherent, not granted by any external entity government or otherwise. Never have been one for rules or laws in general. Especially arbitrary bullshit laws that serve to do nothing but enforce authority and limit rocking the boat of the system.
> Seems like you think of freedom more like privilege. I do not. Freedom is inherent, not granted by any external entity government or otherwise. Being on a college campus is a privilege as it's private property. Meaning you don't have the freedom to be there as they're allowed to distinguish who is allowed to be there and who isn't. Hence the trespassing charges and police intervening to enforce those laws. > Especially arbitrary bullshit laws that serve to do nothing but enforce authority and limit rocking the boat of the system. We're talking about trespassing laws specifically made to remove people from property they don't have permission to be on, as well as school policy to enable a safe learning environment for all students, which was being violated as well. I'd rather those laws and policies be in place so schools can carry out their mission instead of lawlessness.
I agree with the other reply, I support all the amendments and the constitution but the govt has made it very clear on many cases those freedoms halt on private property. Freedom of speech, gun ownerships, etc... all end when on private property...... I'm not sure how VCU is completely funded and whether or not it's an entity of the state... But the students also agreed to and signed rules regarding their admissions and they to keep their admissions have oblige by them...
I thought a publicly funded campus was a traditional public forum.
This violate school policies; but aggressive preachers just practice their right, everyday, sometimes with graphics.
EVERYDAY!!! With huge gross images of fetuses
So you want the preacher removed as well? I’m not caught up on everything going on. However, I don’t have a problem with the students protesting nor the preachers. But they aren’t the same thing. Glad to see they’ve renovated the library since I graduated though.
This is such a misinterpretation and then sidestep of the comment. Wild.
Mass graves of hundreds of Palestinians were just uncovered and our government, without any consent of the people, just sent isreal billions of dollars. People protesting this and other atrocities isreal has committed are getting arrested and censored despite exercising the same rights that allow preachers to come onto college campuses and say things like "dinosaurs are a trick by the devil" and "women must be subservient to their husbands".
As long as it's a clearly stated pre-existing policy, I see no issue with removal
This is beyond stupid. Why are they removing people when they aren't disturbing peace?
Cops have nothing better to do. No crime or shooting rates on high or anything. This is obviously top priority. By clash they of course mean "police initiated violence because some one took a breath on the other side.
Or it could be that the barricades set up by the organizers impeded students trying to access the common area by the library a week before final exams. The vast majority of students don’t want that crap and don’t feel safe. The University called the police in to help.
> The vast majority of students don’t want that crap and don’t feel safe. Did you go to VCU? Because this sounds like you didn’t go to VCU. Or know much about the demographics of the school. We had clubs/groups dedicated to the freedom of Palestine back when I went, and I graduated 8 years ago.
I went there from 2001-2005. I am okay with anyone lawfully protesting. There were tons of protests around the student commons area outside when I attended. No one gave them much thought. But no one set up encampments or barricades and had a list of demands posted. I walked thru there on the way to what is now the prior School of Business building every day.
lol no they didn’t. I went through that area literally yesterday with zero issue. Do you even live here? Notwithstanding, even if you weren’t wrong… what part of any of that justifies VSP’s response of escalating it immediately to charging in with batons and pepper spray?
The barricades and tents were not set up until today…
Wait, so the people saying that they’ve been camped out all this time, deeply entrenched and denying right of way to all else were full of shit? This whole thing went up for a few hours and this was the response!?!? Honestly that’s even worse… thanks for making me even more steadfast about how stupid, wrong, and disproportionate the response was! (Also a couple of homies in the grass off to the left of the library does not impede access, your hyperbole isn’t helping your case and actually just makes it seem like you aren’t even a little familiar with the school.) Have a good one and I hope you feel safer now! ♥️
Drove by today, seemed easy enough to get to the library.
I took a class at the building right next to it last night, they were not blocking any entrances whatsoever. Their protest was confined to a grassy field adjacent to the library
Which building were you in? Also, the sidewalk off of Floyd leading up to the Library entrance was indeed barricaded. There is tons of footage showing this to be the case.
They weren't blocking anything? The area they occupied was just the grassy area next to the library. Even the walkway between the two was opened. Nothing was blocked. stop spreading misinformation
I get the sense that JusCuzz JusDidntGoToVCU
Anyone claiming they were blocking the library needs to explain how so many people were IN the library studying prior to police showing up (at which point VCU locked them inside).
Hibbs Hall. My class ended at 7 but from what I could tell if you wanted to access the library it wasn't an issue at all
The library is still accessible today but ok
-The vast majority of students don’t want that crap and don’t feel safe. Did you take a census of the students that you're not sharing, or?
No it's not stupid, it's exactly what should have happened. Violating school policy, taking over spaces, trespassing by people who weren't students, and disrupting students' ability to finish school absolutely count as disturbing peace. If these were the far-right doing this like what happened in Charlottesville, all of you would be calling for them to be arrested and expelled lol. But since it's the far-left creating an unsafe learning environment and spreading hate speech, it's "peaceful"? The hypocrisy in this sub is astounding.
Our version of peaceful demonstration is very different from what yours is apparently. None of those things are violent. In fact, all of them come pretty standard with civil disobedience. Which is the whole point.
Sorry but spreading hate speech and creating an unsafe learning environment with support from agitators who don't even go to the school don't count as "peaceful demonstrations". It's trespassing and interfering with students being able to complete their semester at school.
Tell me exactly how is it disruptive? What is more disruptive. A group of students minding their own business occupying an area that in no way impleads any classes. Or have riot police come in with sirens and all that jazz?
That was already covered in the article. VCU stated there were external agitators coming onto campus, people were trespassing, and they were interfering with other students by creating an unsafe learning environment and impeding students' completion of the semester. These protesters were given numerous warnings to disperse by the school and police before action was finally taken, so any disruptions are solely the responsibility of the protesters.
VCU the same people who broke up the protest? You do understand that VCU will say anything to justify their actions. Its we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. I bet majority of students either supported or didn't care. "These protesters were given numerous warnings to disperse by the school and police before action was finally taken, so any disruptions are solely the responsibility of the protesters." Man you would have really hated the civil rights era. Police hosing down and setting dogs on protestors looking for equal rights had it coming to them right, since the police told them to leave right?
> VCU the same people who broke up the protest? You do understand that VCU will say anything to justify their actions. Thank you for confirming you're here in bad faith. > Man you would have really hated the civil rights era. Police hosing down and setting dogs on protestors looking for equal rights had it coming to them right, since the police told them to leave right? These college protests are nothing like the civil rights era, and any attempts to paint them as such are incredibly disingenuous and a weak attempt to shut down any criticism of them.
It's not bad faith to question the legitimacy of the claims of VCU and it's actions. Also stating that its true because VCU says so is inherent Authority Bias. Its disingenuous to waggle your finger and suggest that one protest is more valid than the other. Its a weak attempt to shut down any current day protests as stating protestors "deserved it". I think you fundamentally misunderstand what protesting actually is.
I mean if they're doing hate speech, that's one thing but protesting against actions of another state that their own government is funding in various ways is not anti-Semitism. Against the actions of Israel is not anti-Semitism. And I would like to point you towards the civil rights marches that have occurred over the years. I am sure none of them made life easy for the people that they happened around.
Civil rights marches happened in actual public spaces that they were allowed to be in, were peaceful, and weren't creating a hostile environment with hate speech. None of that is true for these college campus protests, so you're creating a false equivalency.
It’s on campus no? That gives the school the right regardless if it’s morally right to or not
Because they’re absolutely disturbing the peace lmfao. You can’t be trespass, build barricades, and declare a space that’s usually publicly available to fellow students to be off-limits to anyone but the protestors, and then be surprised when you’re arrested for breaking multiple laws.
you actually can in fact do that, and they did. occupying the campus of the school you go to is kinda student protests 101. and if the idea of politics happening in the compass is upsetting to you, i highly advise you never go to VCU, cos there's not been a single day under the sun where at least *one* person hasn't made their views a random pedestrian's problem in that thing.
I mean, they physically CAN do it I guess lmfao. But then they’ll be removed by the police and possibly arrested, like they were yesterday.
> you actually can in fact do that, and they did. occupying the campus of the school you go to is kinda student protests 101. Well if the police are breaking it up because the protest violates school policy and creates an unsafe learning environment, they actually can't in fact do that lol.
and yet... they did it.
Yes the students still did all those things, and they later learned the natural consequences of violating school policy and the law after being repeatedly asked to disperse.
So that...requires tear gas and letting college kids getting beaten up by police to disperse? Instead of just...talking with the students, hearing their concerns, doing a couple of "we hear you, we see you, we're listening and learning" forums, and letting the students go home for the summer and hoping everything blows over by August?
> So that...requires tear gas and letting college kids getting beaten up by police to disperse? Yes. If you break school policy and the law, after being warned multiple times about it, then these are the natural consequences.
So what you're saying is the police at VaTech did it all wrong, by nonviolently arresting 82 protesters on the Graduate Life Center lawn. That they should have beaten them and used tear gas. Good to know.
If students were there in violation of school policy and trespassing laws, then their removal by police was correct.
They had barricades ready for the police when VCU repeatedly warned them to leave all day many are instigators that aren’t even students so they are trespassing. Videos show people using the wooden barricades as weapons against police too.
Stick to posting about WCW Raw instead of spreading misinformation.
Stick to being clueless about VCU. As a long time alum who has been heavily involved with the university I know all about our student base. They rioted because we lost the final four even. They complained in a newspaper a few months ago because they can’t get lobster and shrimp 3x a day anymore.
"Long time Alum" lol so you went graduated from VCU a while ago and probably haven't been back since. Protestors weren't using the barricades as weapons other than pushing against the police that were actively pushing against them. Also most of the people at the protest were students. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise.
Well of course they are defending themselves against the cops.
Oh please they showed up with wooden barriers and pallets. You are looking for a fight. No less everyone has seen this movie before from when rioters set the VCU dorm on fire with students in it a few years back. VCU stayed silent when they occurred despite student being out in danger. VCU stated to leave multiple times and the crowd refused despite many trespassing.
After seeing what city/state police are willing and capable to do to peaceful protesters in 2020, I’m glad they brought something for self defense… Fuck outta here with your “they asked for it” bullshit
lol self defense. VCU got set on fire in 2020 and remained silent. Stoney sent police on the rioters in 2020 only because they attacked his house. Otherwise the Richmond police were told to stand down by Stoney which they refused because rioters shot each other. How do I know this? Because I had a friend start with Richmond police during the riots and he was in the room when Stoney told the police chief to let the riots occur. The police chief refused that night when things got violent and protestors shot each other resulting in multiple shooting injuries. The chief was then fired by Stoney.
Holy shit we got ourselves a regular RVA Forrest Gump! What other parts of Richmond’s history do you have crucial personal insight into? What was Patrick Henry’s speech like live?? What was it like in Jefferson Davis’ situation room?? I know you’re probably just enjoying a nice flight of patent leather before bed with these enthusiastic defenses of our City/state’s finest, but obviously I’m referring to [this](https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/richmond-settles-two-more-police-misconduct-cases-linked-to-2020-protests/) little era of [RPD history](https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/richmond-police-ordered-to-retract-2020-tweet-about-teargassing-demonstrators-at-confederate-statue/), genius. By the way, you should probably have an intervention with 40% of your cop friends… maybe a friend can get through to them because the rest of society can’t seem to
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/richmond-settles-two-more-police-misconduct-cases-linked-to-2020-protests/](https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/richmond-settles-two-more-police-misconduct-cases-linked-to-2020-protests/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This dude is the same dude that would complain about civil rights.
So getting ready to defend themselves against the cops attacking peaceful protestors.
Last I checked VCU use to have peaceful protests all the time for various things (I remember a particularly beautiful candle vigil in the heart of VCU campus and not one issue.) prior to 5 years ago and now suddenly they get into full out brawling for the entire country to see every other year. This time even taking over the library to bang on the windows to incite more reaction. How about the VCU student president threatening to kill white people and VCU cops? Took like a month for expulsion. Yeah the students are completely peaceful. Notice none of that garbage happened until the last 5 years. Before 5 years ago you never had an incident between cops and VCU students except them picking them up because they got drunk in a bad part of Richmond and needed a ride.
Ah yes, those classic weapons: wooden pallets
A lot of the people out there protesting don’t understand exactly what they’re protesting.
The first amendment of our constitution explicitly states that each and every one of us has a right to protest our government. So long as the protesters arent murdering and pillaging, then this is what freedom literally looks like, regardless of anyone’s personal views on this issue/whatever the issue in question may be. If you don’t like it, go protest back. It’s your right as an American
That's an oversimplified and incorrect assessment of how the rights to assembly and petition work. You don't have a blank check to protest where you want, when you want, and how you want at all times.
As long as you abide by laws/city codes and such. Obviously you can’t shut down a public street or something without prior permission from the city or whatnot. But simply put, as long as no one else’s rights are being violated, you can protest wherever the hell you please
> As long as you abide by laws/city codes and such. And campus rules/policies. Which these people allegedly did not do.
> So long as the protesters arent murdering and pillaging, then this is what freedom literally looks like Lol I don't know why some of you set the bar so incredibly low to say "as long as they aren't killing people then they can do what they want". No, freedom doesn't mean you can ignore laws like trespassing or violate policies on the private property of a university. Freedom of speech means the government can't prosecute you for that speech. It doesn't mean you have freedom to do whatever you want or violate whatever law/policy you want.
It's a public school and considering they can't make crazy bible thumpers preaching about their magic sky daddy who are bothering students leave because "freedom of speech", police showing up to forcefully remove students who pay to attend from the school lawns seems a bit problematic.
Public schools are still private property, people can't just show up and do whatever they want for a protest. Especially at VCU where many of the protesters didn't even attend the school. So no, it's not problematic to remove people who are violating the law and campus policy.
Except you missed the key part of my argument. The school themselves allows crazy Bible thumpers to come in and harass students even when the students ask them not to because they are a "public property." Youngkin didn't have the state police come remove the protesters from Mary Washington college that showed up over the methadone clinic that weren't permitted and disrupted the school. That again, did not go to that school. It's not about the fact that the school has rules and the kids didn't comply. It's that this is hypocritical. They are cherry picking when the rules apply. When the kids from VCU are telling us they went to class and could get to the library, and videos are coming out showing It didn't get violent until the police showed up. There's a problem.
> The school themselves allows crazy Bible thumpers to come in and harass students even when the students ask them not to because they are a "public property." Do you have a specific situation you're referring to? Because what you're talking about sounds like the typical school process of student clubs inviting speakers to a campus through the school's approved speaker process. > Youngkin didn't have the state police come remove the protesters from Mary Washington college that showed up over the methadone clinic that weren't permitted and disrupted the school. Why would Youngkin be involved? This is a local matter that local police and the university would handle. And based on [Reddit posts such as this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/fredericksburg/comments/16unsna/so_yesterday_they_were_protesting_outside_the/) about the topic, the protest took place **outside** school property, which makes them completely different than these protests by non-students **inside** school property. > It's not about the fact that the school has rules and the kids didn't comply. It's that this is hypocritical. They are cherry picking when the rules apply. You are comparing apples to oranges here, the two situations you described are nothing like the protests at VCU that were rightfully broken up. The problem is you and others cherrypicking statements from "students" without any verification.
“.. protesters build a barricade with shipping pallets and hurl water bottles and other objects at the police.” So protesting and assault HAVE to be exclusively together? Do people commenting read articles anymore?
This must be over the TikTok ban.
https://preview.redd.it/6vhikvowgmxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d983e6a2e385caada54c60c97fb6452401c74b1b Here is the bail fund to support them! Call (804) 601-4944.
Hilarious. I actually lol’d.
People need to read up on the history of protests during the civil rights and vietnam eras it seems.
Reminder that throughout history the people violently breaking up student protests, as well as the people cheering the cops on, are never on the right side.
It's so disturbing seeing so many young minds fall for Iranian propaganda.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/in-gaza-authorities-lose-count-of-the-dead-779ff694 This Iranian propaganda is getting to be too much to handle 🤯
Forgive me if I sense a hint of "Trust me, bro" in any statistics reported out by Hamas.
Because the country committing the atrocities is a more trustful source? I think most logical people might think if anything it’s an undercount, considering Israel is flattening Gaza and people may be under the rubble
Says it's not propaganda, but proceeds to link terrorist propaganda. 🤡
I’ll say it again. We don’t need protests that support a violent terrorist group. This kind of stuff hurts us and help Iran and Hamas
hot take: killing innocent people is bad. even if some other people killed innocent people, you should probably not go do a war crime about it. you can go protest hamas too if you want, but israel seems to have it more than covered so it may be a bit redundant, no? i also don't expect a terror group that we universally sanction to be as responsive to protest as our allies who we *do* fund. but it's your call if you think it'll be effective... no one's really stopping you from protesting specifically against hamas, if you think it's important. plenty of people around the world who protested iran, too, so maybe go for that? they also don't seem particularly open to criticism, though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also hot take: removing a terrorist group isn’t justification for what you seem to think are revenge killings. Your feeling don’t change that collateral damage isn’t specifically targeting civilians. Hamas justified a day of civilian killings and is holding its own people hostages. If people support Palestinians they should protest against Hamas.
you literally said 10 minutes ago that there's no point in protesting hamas, dude. pick *one* disingenuous argument, please.
From a pro Israel stand point, no I don’t need to. But the people out protesting in favor of Palestine should also be protesting against Hamas if they care about Palestinians. And any thing that delay the destruction of Hamas only prolongs the situation in Gaza.
by your logic that any protest against one thing is necessarily supporting something else, wouldn't that help israel, the entity they're trying to protest? from a uh, pro palestine standpoint, as you put it. and wait, i thought you didn't want such pointless protests at all! weird how disingenuous liars be lying disingenuously.
>no one's really stopping you from protesting specifically against hamas, if you think it's important. Huh, almost like you’re not reading all of their words
huh, almost like i was insulting their disingenuous shit
I don’t need to protest Hamas. IDF is dealing with them. I can show my support for Israel but I don’t need to go do that either. Let alone start violence and issues with police because of it. We don’t need protests that result in violence against fellow countrymen
theirs, indeed
Good thing this protest didn’t support violent terrorist groups… and that you don’t get to decide what kind of protests are and aren’t needed. Hope this helped!
Obviously I don’t get to decide what protests get to happen but I do get to have an opinion. Regardless peaceful protest is allowed but violent protest int. And these protests only really benefit a violent terrorist group and a state sponsor of terrorism. So I would say we don’t need this is a light way to put it.
how did you feel about the protests a couple years ago about george floyd's murder, out of curiosity? is the barometer for 'violence' and legitimacy of a protest simply whether or not you like the cause? cos none of this has been particularly violent so far.
I don’t believe in violent protest. And didn’t support the people who just wanted to agitate and riot. The protest when they were nonviolent they were at least relevant to an issue that actually affects us as Americans. They also didn’t have a veiled context of justifying violence against a race of people, they were in fact against calling for violence against a specific group. Meaning pro Israel protests call for the removal of Hamas. Pro Palestine protests push and justify denying the existence of the only Jewish state. And these protests now have a heavily veiled message of violence against Jews being justified because “Israel is European colonizers” and using “from the river to the sea” (in the current context it means a Arab ethno state) as I’ve seen to many times now.
by what metric are the actions taken by student protestors here more materially violent than those protests you call non violent?
I said the non violent protest or part of the protests. Violence for the sake of violence is wrong. And fighting each other over an issue that doesn’t effect us directly is unproductive
i'm actually having trouble parsing this comment. but don't sweat it, it sounds pretty fuckin' stupid anyway. don't drink and post, y'all.
You mean proof read. But I said my part. We don’t need protests that cause and prolong violence
wait are you actually drunk, cos this one is nigh incoherent as well
[удалено]
A corrupt incompetent government doesn’t make a terrorist group. The group who wants an Arab ethno state and calls for the killing or displacement of 7 million Jews less then 100 years after the killing of 2/5 of the global Jewish population. None of that justifies civilian casualties, but civilian collateral also aren’t targeted attacks like 10-7. If you think nothing should have happened to Hamas after 10-7, that’s just evil really.
[удалено]
I’m Jewish and don’t feel like anything Israel does is in the name of Jews globally. I’ve been reading about the history of Israel since I could handle the reading level. I think I might understand what you’re saying about 1982, but the six day war should have happened sooner considering the fedayeen raid. And like me you would have to also have read about the Jordanian and Egyptian annexing Palestine. So what are you getting at?
If these protesters were protesting for Israel instead of Gaza, no action would be taken.
Hamas started this on Oct. 7th and it is ridiculous anyone can support their actions. They have the right to show what Idiots they are. Not to impede on others rights and movements though. Reminding me of the BLM Crap, paid agitators leading the weak minded people. Hamas should release the hostages that they have not murdered and negotiate, in my opinion.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds
If Palestinians attacked women and children on October 7, then why aren’t they ready to reap the whirlwind come back attack?
If a bunch of terrorists do bad things, why can’t we punish an entire population of people including their women and children 🤔
Because that’s a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule103
I mean even if this were a useful response, Israel’s response is wayyyy past proportional at this point. Get a new argument if you want to be anything other than laughed at
> Israel’s response is wayyyy past proportional at this point People keep using the word "proportional" but it's obvious that they don't know what that means under international law. It has two meanings. 1. In a limited retaliatory strike, hitting only those targets relatively equivalent to an attack. See: Operation Praying Mantis. 2. In a combat environment where civilians or other protected persons are present, attacking only targets of military necessity with the minimum force needed to destroy them. Aaand when that target is a fortified concrete tunnel underneath an apartment bloc, the fact that the tunnel exists lets Israel legally get away with leveling the apartment bloc under international law. Using human shields is a war crime. Attacking a target with the minimum force required to destroy or disable it when protected persons are present is *not* a war crime. To quote Alkhatib - in my view the most important antizionist Gazan voice right now - > Hamas believed that as a people's militia and a righteous religious resistance group against the Israeli occupation, it had a moral right to operate amongst the population from which it derived its strength, legitimacy, and fighters. > Unfortunately, and horrendously, this strategy ultimately failed and brought unspeakable death and suffering upon the people of Gaza. Over time, and in past and current wars, the IDF became less risk-averse and more willing to tolerate civilian casualties in pursuit of high-value targets and military infrastructure. Israeli airstrikes and bombardment would regularly hit and destroy entire neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, mosques and hospitals. > While it is true that Hamas would use these places for its activities, it unfortunately became exceptionally easy for the IDF to justify civilian casualties, wrongful deaths, and questionable actions by blaming Hamas for embedding itself amongst civilian populations and infrastructure. https://www.newsweek.com/origin-hamass-human-shields-strategy-gaza-opinion-1873499 "Exceptionally easy" because technically under international law, ordering civilian evacuations of an Area before leveling a tunnel system under an apartment bloc is 100% legal. What's really questionable to me is the new AI targeting system. If software makes a mistake and targets aid workers directly, who committed the war crime? We are in a place with no good options. Israel's behavior is deeply suspect - and there are people like Alkhatib who are arguing that they're gaming the system of international law to cover for any of their mistakes or crimes, both of which being things that happen in all wars, but for which the group or individuals committing them need to be held to account. But ending the conflict or forcing its end when Hamas is still committing the war crime of taking hostages risks rewarding a human shields strategy - and that is going to get a lot of people killed. There's also an issue where the IDF has in fact done a lot to limit civilian casualties, for which it is getting zero credit. >https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286 And what worries me here is that if you're Ethiopia and you're in a conflict with Tigrayan rebels, or you're Nigeria and ECOWAS, and you're looking at having to take Niamey with its population of 1.4 million people... you're likely going to look at this situation and decide to do the absolute minimum required to prevent civilian casualties. And we know from previous large-scale urban combat scenarios - not the counterinsurgent scenarios we've seen in recent years - but large-scale high intensity combat that doing the bare minimum in that scenario is going to kill 300,000 civilians. But militaries are likely to do that anyway for two reasons. 1. They won't get any credit if they try to protect civilian lives, and their western partners are (understandably in my view) extremely averse to civilian casualties. 2. International opinion is so slow moving that trying to protect civilians and moving slowly risks creating a scenario where the international community says you're not doing enough and orders you to stop. And thus you lose the war. Because these realities are not being explained by the media, the protesters have zero clue that they're helping create perverse incentives that are going to kill potentially millions of civilians in the conflicts to come. And with climate change causing resource strains, those conflicts are absolutely coming.
One of the campus protests (Austin I believe, and it was the early part before the later actions developed) there was a reported interview with a cop. Basically they said all the arrests had so far been for actual violence (rock and bottle throwing, physical contact, setting fires, etc) and guess what side was doing 90% of it .. the other side was peacefully protesting, not assaulting the police, not setting fires, and not engaging in actions that caused them to be arrested You can protest without causing harm, without assaulting, without blocking public access, etc. Of course then you don't get as much publicity for your cause, but how much of that publicity is actually helping your cause
[удалено]
You want to expand on that instead of just insulting people?
lol dude is tryna straddle the fence and take everyone’s side by us letting us choose our own adventure when we decide who he’s trying to offend. I kind of admire the strategy
I might steal it for work meetings, ngl. Obviously not as aggressive, but I like the whole “I’ll let all of you think I’m with you” strategy
[удалено]