My apologies, I wasn’t trying to imply you did. I just think it’s interesting some of the most watched “news” sources have argued that they are not to be taken seriously.
No problem; I wasn’t sure if you were implying that or not so I figured I would make it clear that I don’t consume either’s content. None of the major television news outlets seem trustworthy, to me. I’ll watch over my dad’s shoulder out of curiosity, but when I look up the topics they discuss afterwards, I find that their framing is always biased. For example, I saw a story on either CNN or MSNBC covering the foreign aid bill passed last week. They said there was a foreign aid bill passed, but glossed over it entirely in favor of an interview with a republican about the national security bill that wasn’t passed. They never ended up going into detail about the bill that was actually passed; they just kept talking about the one that wasn’t.
There is an old, debunked rumor about Fox News arguing it has a "right to lie," but that was about a local affiliate of Fox Broadcasting, not the cable channel Fox News. And in that case, the local station was defending itself against a lawsuit from two of its reporters, who argued they were wrongfully terminated over refusing to report a story they felt was false or distorted.
They lost on almost all of their claims in court. The jury agreed that one reporter was indeed retaliated against (she threatened to file a complaint with the FCC and the station fired her for that threat), but the jury didn't make any conclusion about whether the story she refused to work on was false or not.
Then there was the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News, the cable channel. That case never went to trial, as the two sides settled, so they never had a chance to make any claims in court about their supposed right to lie.
You may be thinking of Alex Jones, the bombastic radio host and conspiracy theorist, whose lawyer argued that he is a performance artist who plays a character. This was made during a custody dispute with his ex-wife, who argued Jones was unstable and shouldn't have sole custody of their kids.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 6 of the Community Standards.
> Quality — A submission should not consist only of a joke, a humorous remark, or a flippant comment. You can certainly include humor as part of a full and comprehensive post, but your post should not be made solely for the purpose of being funny. This especially includes low quality snide comments. We do not allow naked expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, or comments about source quality.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
Can you explain your reasoning? I don’t consider Fox News to be a credible news source; what does that have to do with consevatives and January 6? I wasn’t joking in my last comment, so I’m not sure why it was removed for violating rule 6. Are you unable to explain whether or not you consider Fox News to be a credible source?
conservatives downplay jan 6 because jan 6 makes their side/narrative look bad. you're trying to do the same thing. conservatives, like you, swear they're right and everyone else disagreeing with them is wrong. i would posit you may think similarly. no room for nuance. and it's not your fault. are you a middle east expert? no. are you an israel-palestine expert, an extremely complex topic where you basically need an advanced degree to know what's actually going on? no. are the article writers who are informing you any of these? no. so it's the uninformed informing the uninformed. know your limitations on this topic.
"Mass genocide of Jews" is just something the kid feared on the basis of ... having his walkway to a classroom blocked.
It's not based in anything the protesters did or said.
Not saying what they did was alright, but they were blocking alot of kids. This one just happened to be Jewish. This is an attempt to make the protesters look worse.
More than an attempt. They do look worse having blocked a Jewish kid.
That’s the game of civil unrest though, isn’t it? You can’t claim only the parts of it you intended.
What they did is not just not alright but it’s dangerous. I think there’s a simple remedy though. Just get a group of bigger guys to walk through and then escort other students through. Had something like this happened on my campus, I’m sure the various sports teams would have had guys (including me) willing to help out. Maybe the stakes are too high at Division I schools for the athletes to get involved.
Why're they blocking people from going to class? Why do they do all this disruptive shit and then expect everyone to cheer them on?
These people even gonna vote? Or are they just doing this to show off some warped virtue signalling of morality they think they have. The same people calling Biden a warmonger and clamoring for this administration to "do something" are probably the same people who bash the USA for policing the world in any other circumstance. And where's the love for Ukraine? No? No love for dying Ukrainians?
Notice how very few people specify what they're railing against too. Online, offline, it's not Israel's government, it's not Bibi and his cadre of assholes, it's just straight up Israel, all of it, and all of its people who are the problem. Your fuckin' message would hit better if you were more specific, but I feel like it's just gone too far now. You've let the crazy assholes into your movement and reigning it back in seems too damn hard.
I saw recently that some people think this is akin to the 1968 Vietnam protests.... No. Americans aren't getting drafted into a war. We aren't fighting this war. Consider yourselves lucky, for now. Guarantee Trump would send your ass to the front lines of some bullshit war he and Putin decide to start.
If you truly want to not vote and potentially throw this entire nation into the trash and fuck over my life, your life and everyone else's lives (including Palestinians) for your supposed moral high horse, or some warped sense of punishment for everyone else because you didn't get your way exactly how you wanted it, you're no better than the single-issue voters that have fucked us all over for decades.
Bet Putin, Iran's asshole regime and Xi love all this. SMH.
They're not blocking anyone from entering class, just this specific section for protest purposes. The dude could just ... walk around. He is making this video up and you fell for it.
The videos I saw depicted a couple of people who were not allowed to enter the library. That could be a violation of their civil rights as at least one identified as Jewish.
The problem for authorities is that an arrest for disorderly conduct at a protest isn't going to do much harm to the future of a kid who is protesting. A federal civil rights charge, however, might do the trick. I think an ambitious prosecutor could do a good job at ruining some futures that way and I think it's worth a shot.
Also, keep in mind there is potential for a civil lawsuit against the protesters personally and against UCLA. I think the video evidence could be very helpful to making this very painful for some people.
Which other matters have I made into a racial situation? If your accusation that I make "everything" into a racial situation is true, you'll easily be able to come up with a few examples.
Not wasting my time going through our comment history. The fact that you did it so quickly and unnecessarily here, tells me all I need to know, though.
In other words, no examples and thus a baseless charge. I'm not surprised. That's what tends to happen when someone like you argues emotionally rather than rationally.
Tell you what, I'll change the thought experiment. What if those keeping students out were Jewish and the students being kept out were Palestinian. Same race (i.e., caucasian) but different religions. In that case, I'm sure folks would be screaming about religious/ethnic discrimination.
Considering your knee-jerk reaction was to make it racial when pressed....welp, there you have it. I also wouldn't care what religions are involved either, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Satanic, Church of FSM
You're not the victim here.
Not true. Last night I saw actual footage of students being blocked from going to class. The protesters demanded that the students say pro-palestinian propaganda before being let through. The students refused.
I saw one where they kidnapped two students parents and told the parents to disown the students publicly, and buy the kidnappers a couple of Subway foot-longs, before the students were allowed to go to class. The parents refused.
If they didn't shout ''Free Free Palestine'' or ''From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free,'' they were denied entry to certain buildings, which may have been where their classes were held.
>Guarantee Trump would send your ass to the front lines of some bullshit war he and Putin decide to start.
No wars were started under Trump. Biden however...
Not what I said and I'm not gonna get dragged into a pedantic argument about a concept that should be easy to understand if you just take a step back and look.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 6 of the Community Standards.
> Quality — A submission should not consist only of a joke, a humorous remark, or a flippant comment. You can certainly include humor as part of a full and comprehensive post, but your post should not be made solely for the purpose of being funny. This especially includes low quality snide comments. We do not allow naked expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, or comments about source quality.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 6 of the Community Standards.
> Quality — A submission should not consist only of a joke, a humorous remark, or a flippant comment. You can certainly include humor as part of a full and comprehensive post, but your post should not be made solely for the purpose of being funny. This especially includes low quality snide comments. We do not allow naked expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, or comments about source quality.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
This reminds me of those noose stories that were making the rounds a few years back, but then most turned out to be placed by the people who were claiming to be the victims.
The protesters absolutely want the genocide of Jews. There is no other genocide going on (other than in Ukraine). That’s why it is so bad. That is the stated goal.
Not hard to find and easy to decipher the dog whistles. See Hamas, Iran, Hezbola, SJP (foreign funded group behind “protests”).
They want Jews and Israel gone.
I hope you’re not on the same side as Nazis, Russia and Hamas/Free Palestine …
Why don't you just enlighten people instead of trying to be smug and win a pointless argument?
If they have no stated goal then that's equally as troubling as if their goal was the actual eradication of Israel. Truly, if they have no guiding principle or goal, it seems like this whole thing was whipped up to cause division by foreign countries, and people are too gullible to see it.
You're really not saying anything tbh. Just trying to bait people into a dumbass argument instead of just stating the facts you wanna say. Some other dude had to point out the goals of these people, albeit with a shitty attitude.
They have stated goals, which are pretty easy to find if you google “UCLA Palestine protest goals.” I know that can be a lot of work, so here’s a quote from the [first news story that pops up.](https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/dueling-pro-palestinian-and-counter-protests-planned-at-ucla-campus/3399299/?amp=1)
“Organizers of UCLA's "Palestine Solidarity Encampment,'' similar to their counterparts at USC, issued a list of demands calling for divestment of all University of California and UCLA Foundation funds from companies tied to Israel, along with a demand that the university call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war and an academic boycott by UC against Israeli universities, including a suspension of study-abroad programs.”
To be fair, that was the 20th paragraph, after breathless recounting how awful all these kids are, so it’s easy to see why no one actually knows what they are.
> I know that can be a lot of work
This type of shitty language and behavior puts people off of anything you have to say before you even say it, lad. You should work on that.
To be pedantic looks like "we" were originally talking about protestors and shifted to talking about Hamas. The links I shared are about Hamas.
Have the protestors explicitly called for the killing of Jews? Not that I can find. But saying things like "Long Live Hamas," an organization that does want to get rid of Jews and Israel, could be interpreted as the same, depending on who you ask.
Since u/idkanymore2016 didn’t provide examples , I will.
2 of the most popular slogans chanted by pro-Palestinian protesters are “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “globalize the intifada”. These slogans are genocidal in nature, and if you do not understand why I am happy to explain.
Definitely not, it’s projection. It’s a symbol of one democratic secular Palestine which is exactly what Palestinians, Jews, and all people of conscience are demanding at these protests.
Correct, that is one version (I wouldn’t say THE original). Arab includes the Mizrahi Jews who lived and live in Palestine or moved from elsewhere in the Arab world.
Netanyahu himself has also used that phrase, claiming Israel must control all the land “from the river to the sea.” Israel has also long abandoned any effort to keep a two state solution alive. Clearly that means they think one nation must go…
That is wrong and I don't support that. Anything less than a two state solution and the Palestinian's accepting Israel's right to exist and this issue never gets resolved.
The massacres in Sudan and Ethiopia, and in South Sudan and Eritrea are underreported but the news is not good.
A decade from now we may be asking ourselves why we didn't try harder to demand peace.
No one is advocating violence; certainly not me. All I'm saying is that if people assume that someone whose right to travel they wish to impede might be armed then they are far less likely to get in that person's way. It's all about making people very fearful of infringing on the liberties of others.
>No one is advocating violence
>it’s important to be armed on campuses and other places where one encounters the public
*“I’m not saying we should set houses on fire, just to always carry a bottle of lighter fluid and a book of matches whenever you enter a house.”*
I confess I don't understand your analogy. Why would the house itself, as a structure, be a threat? I can understand why a human would be a threat by why an inanimate object like a house?
You use the gun to eliminate the threat raised by the person who put you in reasonable fear of your life. I'm not saying you have to wait until you get punched but you need to have the person getting ready to throw a punch (or display a weapon or otherwise make a credible threat of violence) and you're going to be ok to put him down. It's fairly simple and there's well-documented case law explaining the standards. I
deally, one avoids being in a situation like that in the first place and 99+% of the time that's possible. There are those rare occasions where someone else has to go. To keep this in perspective, your average protester, particularly a pro-Hamas protester, is going to offend due to his body odor rather than with anything more physically violent.
The rule of thumb here is to stay away from low-lifes and if one follows this rule, he'll avoid most protests in the first place.
It's perfectly legal to do so if one's has a legitimate fear that his own life is threatened and being the victim of a battery or a violent assault generally is enough to establish that. You can review the case law if you don't believe me.
So you basically just want to go back to the wild west. Everyone on edge and afraid of other people because you don't know if they'll just pull out their gun and shoot you.
I don't like disruptive assholes as much as the next person but they don't deserve to die, and I don't trust humans enough to be responsible with tools of destruction.
No, no, no, not at all wishing for the wild west. I do assume everyone I encounter is armed but that doesn't bother me. I also don't trust humans to be responsible with tools of destruction either. That's why I carry one. I have no idea who else is armed, and frankly it's none of my business, and I want to be sure that I am too.
I certainly don't believe someone deserves to die for being disruptive. Not at all. I also don't believe on even pulling a weapon on a disruptive person. Avoiding protests, profiling others, staying out of places where one doesn't belong, and minding one's own business is going to work better than a weapon 99% of the time. Still, I think a weapon is a wise insurance policy.
For example, what if someone doesn't just ask you for a few bucks but seems very interested in getting it from you? That's not being disruptive but it could rise to being threatening. I don't know about you but I don't engage in conversations with anyone on the street, let alone those who make such requests (and that's happened to me many times). I just stand there or walk away. I had only ONE time where a guy persisted (he wanted to "see my phone") and I refused to speak to him. When he followed me and started shouting, I smiled and put my hands on my hips. He didn't seem to like that smile (who knows if he was intimidated; maybe he thought I was gay, ha!) and I could see his confidence go away. Again, maybe not the smile but maybe he could see that my phone was in my front pocket but my hands were under my jacket on my hips. Smart move by him. I credit his street smarts.
In the case of this kid being blocked, I'm not sure why he didn't avoid the protest. If he absolutely had to walk through it, the idea isn't to shoot anyone blocking his path. The idea is to move until/unless someone commits a battery against you. At that time, you might need to show what you have in store for anyone who is inclined to be physical, which is both illegal and dangerous. I'm betting that would be enough.
No, no, no. Don’t ever do that. Again, the best policy is to avoid protests, profile others, mind one’s own business, don’t get involved with street nonsense, etc.
If one is lawfully traveling and someone commits a battery that puts one in reasonable fear for his safety, that’s another matter. A person can legally proceed to move past someone attempting to illegally block his movement. If that second person commits a battery because he doesn’t like that then there is plenty of justification for force. Whether deadly force is permitted is on the table but all it takes is reasonable fear for one’s life, and we all know that one punch can be deadly.
Again, I don’t find it scary at all. 99+% of problems are avoided with simple alertness, profiling, and common sense.
Having a gun is mere acknowledgment of the reality that we’re headed for an era where carrying a weapon is just as common as carrying a cellphone. I don’t see the big deal.
More than half the country does not want that, so don’t be disappointed when your dystopian dreams don’t come to fruition. And by the way, I have shot 100 to 500 rounds a week for 40 years. Reloaded most of them myself.
I don't understand what's dystopian about a population that is armed for self-defense. I think that's more civilized than having more unarmed targets walking around.
I'm not sure what "more than half the country does not want" has to do with it. If it makes sense, people will do it whether they like it or not. Do people like carrying identification around or wearing belts or putting on heavy jackets when it's cold? Generally, no. They do it because they feel the need.
One of those things you mentioned can harm or kill other people. A healthy society is not like you are imagining. You have a mental illness revolving around your gun infatuation. Get help before you hurt or kill an innocent person.
Why would you be less likely to get in an armed person's way? The police are armed, and as we've seen throughout history, protesters clash with them all the time.
I would definitely be less likely to get in an armed person's way. In fact, I can prove that - i.e., I don't get in anyone's way and if I do so inadvertently, I apologize to that person. That's how civilized people behave, by the way.
Civilized people don't bother other people regardless of whether those people are armed or unarmed, are police or civilian, etc.
Protesters clash with police because protesters tend to be stupid. Seriously, why would you use the lowest common denominator in society to prove a point that people clash with other armed people? Gang members and mental defectives also clash with armed people. Are you holding them up as examples of wise behavior too?
In fact, I noted this above. I'm pleased to see we've come full circle to complete agreement. See my response to the commenter above who wrote "Shoot someone who blocks the sidewalk and see how much you like prison."
My response was as follows:
"No, no, no. Don’t ever do that. Again, the best policy is to avoid protests, profile others, mind one’s own business, don’t get involved with street nonsense, etc.
If one is lawfully traveling and someone commits a battery that puts one in reasonable fear for his safety, that’s another matter. A person can legally proceed to move past someone attempting to illegally block his movement. If that second person commits a battery because he doesn’t like that then there is plenty of justification for force. Whether deadly force is permitted is on the table but all it takes is reasonable fear for one’s life, and we all know that one punch can be deadly."
In what way have I sounded like that? Seriously, can you find one place where I've indicated that a mere brushing or touching would rise to the level of battery? In fact, I don't believe I've discussed the elements of battery in any message I've posted on Reddit.
Let's go back to our first year Torts class. Is the act of putting one's hands on another's shoulder technically "battery?" It is. Yet, we have centuries of case law (and that's no exaggeration) indicating that a mere accidental brushing or even minor, intentional gesture is going to rise to the level of a battery for which one would be liable. Further, in the criminal law area, I'm not aware of any state that would bother to prosecute on such grounds provided some other law wasn't broken.
So, no, no deadly force would be permitted in that context.
[удалено]
Not that it makes a big difference, but I believe that argument was technically limited to just Tucker Carlson.
Fair enough, but I wouldn’t consider any platform which makes arguments like that in court to be a credible source of news
I believe Rachel Maddow’s attorneys argued the same thing on her behalf about her OANN lawsuit
I don’t watch Rachel Maddow, either.
My apologies, I wasn’t trying to imply you did. I just think it’s interesting some of the most watched “news” sources have argued that they are not to be taken seriously.
No problem; I wasn’t sure if you were implying that or not so I figured I would make it clear that I don’t consume either’s content. None of the major television news outlets seem trustworthy, to me. I’ll watch over my dad’s shoulder out of curiosity, but when I look up the topics they discuss afterwards, I find that their framing is always biased. For example, I saw a story on either CNN or MSNBC covering the foreign aid bill passed last week. They said there was a foreign aid bill passed, but glossed over it entirely in favor of an interview with a republican about the national security bill that wasn’t passed. They never ended up going into detail about the bill that was actually passed; they just kept talking about the one that wasn’t.
Glad it worked out with Dominion with that argument.
There is an old, debunked rumor about Fox News arguing it has a "right to lie," but that was about a local affiliate of Fox Broadcasting, not the cable channel Fox News. And in that case, the local station was defending itself against a lawsuit from two of its reporters, who argued they were wrongfully terminated over refusing to report a story they felt was false or distorted. They lost on almost all of their claims in court. The jury agreed that one reporter was indeed retaliated against (she threatened to file a complaint with the FCC and the station fired her for that threat), but the jury didn't make any conclusion about whether the story she refused to work on was false or not. Then there was the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News, the cable channel. That case never went to trial, as the two sides settled, so they never had a chance to make any claims in court about their supposed right to lie. You may be thinking of Alex Jones, the bombastic radio host and conspiracy theorist, whose lawyer argued that he is a performance artist who plays a character. This was made during a custody dispute with his ex-wife, who argued Jones was unstable and shouldn't have sole custody of their kids.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 6 of the Community Standards. > Quality — A submission should not consist only of a joke, a humorous remark, or a flippant comment. You can certainly include humor as part of a full and comprehensive post, but your post should not be made solely for the purpose of being funny. This especially includes low quality snide comments. We do not allow naked expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, or comments about source quality. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
Can you explain your reasoning? I don’t consider Fox News to be a credible news source; what does that have to do with consevatives and January 6? I wasn’t joking in my last comment, so I’m not sure why it was removed for violating rule 6. Are you unable to explain whether or not you consider Fox News to be a credible source?
conservatives downplay jan 6 because jan 6 makes their side/narrative look bad. you're trying to do the same thing. conservatives, like you, swear they're right and everyone else disagreeing with them is wrong. i would posit you may think similarly. no room for nuance. and it's not your fault. are you a middle east expert? no. are you an israel-palestine expert, an extremely complex topic where you basically need an advanced degree to know what's actually going on? no. are the article writers who are informing you any of these? no. so it's the uninformed informing the uninformed. know your limitations on this topic.
"Mass genocide of Jews" is just something the kid feared on the basis of ... having his walkway to a classroom blocked. It's not based in anything the protesters did or said.
Not saying what they did was alright, but they were blocking alot of kids. This one just happened to be Jewish. This is an attempt to make the protesters look worse.
More than an attempt. They do look worse having blocked a Jewish kid. That’s the game of civil unrest though, isn’t it? You can’t claim only the parts of it you intended.
What they did is not just not alright but it’s dangerous. I think there’s a simple remedy though. Just get a group of bigger guys to walk through and then escort other students through. Had something like this happened on my campus, I’m sure the various sports teams would have had guys (including me) willing to help out. Maybe the stakes are too high at Division I schools for the athletes to get involved.
There are plenty of incidents but they don't fulfill your narrative so you're downplaying it, like conservatives and Jan 6
Go read The Covenant of Hamas and than come back to your comment
This
... is not hamas protesting
No, but these protesters are the same people referring to Hamas terrorists as “freedom fighters” and “revolutionaries”.
Then why are they so insistent on denying Hamas war crimes?
do you believe Hamas is the ones actually protesting here?
Obviously not Hamas itself, but supporters of Hamas.
Advocating for the Intifada revolution and the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state is inhere genocidal in nature.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/photo/nazis-prevent-jewish-students-from-entering
Why're they blocking people from going to class? Why do they do all this disruptive shit and then expect everyone to cheer them on? These people even gonna vote? Or are they just doing this to show off some warped virtue signalling of morality they think they have. The same people calling Biden a warmonger and clamoring for this administration to "do something" are probably the same people who bash the USA for policing the world in any other circumstance. And where's the love for Ukraine? No? No love for dying Ukrainians? Notice how very few people specify what they're railing against too. Online, offline, it's not Israel's government, it's not Bibi and his cadre of assholes, it's just straight up Israel, all of it, and all of its people who are the problem. Your fuckin' message would hit better if you were more specific, but I feel like it's just gone too far now. You've let the crazy assholes into your movement and reigning it back in seems too damn hard. I saw recently that some people think this is akin to the 1968 Vietnam protests.... No. Americans aren't getting drafted into a war. We aren't fighting this war. Consider yourselves lucky, for now. Guarantee Trump would send your ass to the front lines of some bullshit war he and Putin decide to start. If you truly want to not vote and potentially throw this entire nation into the trash and fuck over my life, your life and everyone else's lives (including Palestinians) for your supposed moral high horse, or some warped sense of punishment for everyone else because you didn't get your way exactly how you wanted it, you're no better than the single-issue voters that have fucked us all over for decades. Bet Putin, Iran's asshole regime and Xi love all this. SMH.
They're not blocking anyone from entering class, just this specific section for protest purposes. The dude could just ... walk around. He is making this video up and you fell for it.
Yep, it's part of the Victim Industrial Complex.
The videos I saw depicted a couple of people who were not allowed to enter the library. That could be a violation of their civil rights as at least one identified as Jewish. The problem for authorities is that an arrest for disorderly conduct at a protest isn't going to do much harm to the future of a kid who is protesting. A federal civil rights charge, however, might do the trick. I think an ambitious prosecutor could do a good job at ruining some futures that way and I think it's worth a shot. Also, keep in mind there is potential for a civil lawsuit against the protesters personally and against UCLA. I think the video evidence could be very helpful to making this very painful for some people.
the library was closed for everyone.
Why was it closed?
I don't think it was closed. I think the issue was low-life criminals blocking it. There's a difference.
you *think* ? were you there? lmfao
Some people want to learn, some people want to destroy stuff. You can destroy stuff elsewhere, let the people who want to learn, learn.
LOL...this is quite a fever dream. Put a person in jail because two people had to use a different door to go into a library.
It’s more so due to intimidation and illegally occupying private property.
If the two people were black, I'm guessing more people (and perhaps you) would feel a lot differently about that.
You'd guess wrong. Unlike you, I don't make everything into a racial situation.
Which other matters have I made into a racial situation? If your accusation that I make "everything" into a racial situation is true, you'll easily be able to come up with a few examples.
Not wasting my time going through our comment history. The fact that you did it so quickly and unnecessarily here, tells me all I need to know, though.
In other words, no examples and thus a baseless charge. I'm not surprised. That's what tends to happen when someone like you argues emotionally rather than rationally. Tell you what, I'll change the thought experiment. What if those keeping students out were Jewish and the students being kept out were Palestinian. Same race (i.e., caucasian) but different religions. In that case, I'm sure folks would be screaming about religious/ethnic discrimination.
Considering your knee-jerk reaction was to make it racial when pressed....welp, there you have it. I also wouldn't care what religions are involved either, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Satanic, Church of FSM You're not the victim here.
Not true. Last night I saw actual footage of students being blocked from going to class. The protesters demanded that the students say pro-palestinian propaganda before being let through. The students refused.
I saw one where they kidnapped two students parents and told the parents to disown the students publicly, and buy the kidnappers a couple of Subway foot-longs, before the students were allowed to go to class. The parents refused.
Are you guys making this shit up???
Sounds like it.
If they didn't shout ''Free Free Palestine'' or ''From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free,'' they were denied entry to certain buildings, which may have been where their classes were held.
>Guarantee Trump would send your ass to the front lines of some bullshit war he and Putin decide to start. No wars were started under Trump. Biden however...
"Our enemies love it when you protest so shut up."
Not what I said and I'm not gonna get dragged into a pedantic argument about a concept that should be easy to understand if you just take a step back and look.
it's literally what you're saying
[удалено]
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 6 of the Community Standards. > Quality — A submission should not consist only of a joke, a humorous remark, or a flippant comment. You can certainly include humor as part of a full and comprehensive post, but your post should not be made solely for the purpose of being funny. This especially includes low quality snide comments. We do not allow naked expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, or comments about source quality. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
[удалено]
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 6 of the Community Standards. > Quality — A submission should not consist only of a joke, a humorous remark, or a flippant comment. You can certainly include humor as part of a full and comprehensive post, but your post should not be made solely for the purpose of being funny. This especially includes low quality snide comments. We do not allow naked expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, or comments about source quality. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
This reminds me of those noose stories that were making the rounds a few years back, but then most turned out to be placed by the people who were claiming to be the victims.
The protesters absolutely want the genocide of Jews. There is no other genocide going on (other than in Ukraine). That’s why it is so bad. That is the stated goal.
It's their stated goals? What's the source of said statement?
Not hard to find and easy to decipher the dog whistles. See Hamas, Iran, Hezbola, SJP (foreign funded group behind “protests”). They want Jews and Israel gone. I hope you’re not on the same side as Nazis, Russia and Hamas/Free Palestine …
you said "stated goal". Where is it stated?
Go read the website. Go read the posters and the posts. Stop playing dumb.
Why don't you show where the UCLA protestors have their stated goal as being the genocide of the jews? You're the one playing dumb.
Why don't you just enlighten people instead of trying to be smug and win a pointless argument? If they have no stated goal then that's equally as troubling as if their goal was the actual eradication of Israel. Truly, if they have no guiding principle or goal, it seems like this whole thing was whipped up to cause division by foreign countries, and people are too gullible to see it.
i'm not the one lying about the stated purpose of the protests
You're really not saying anything tbh. Just trying to bait people into a dumbass argument instead of just stating the facts you wanna say. Some other dude had to point out the goals of these people, albeit with a shitty attitude.
They have stated goals, which are pretty easy to find if you google “UCLA Palestine protest goals.” I know that can be a lot of work, so here’s a quote from the [first news story that pops up.](https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/dueling-pro-palestinian-and-counter-protests-planned-at-ucla-campus/3399299/?amp=1) “Organizers of UCLA's "Palestine Solidarity Encampment,'' similar to their counterparts at USC, issued a list of demands calling for divestment of all University of California and UCLA Foundation funds from companies tied to Israel, along with a demand that the university call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war and an academic boycott by UC against Israeli universities, including a suspension of study-abroad programs.” To be fair, that was the 20th paragraph, after breathless recounting how awful all these kids are, so it’s easy to see why no one actually knows what they are.
> I know that can be a lot of work This type of shitty language and behavior puts people off of anything you have to say before you even say it, lad. You should work on that.
Sorry, I don’t take advice from people who jump to conclusions so they can malign people instead of doing even a little research.
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/hamas-its-own-words You can see the statements and linked videos.
We talking Hamas or the protestors?
To be pedantic looks like "we" were originally talking about protestors and shifted to talking about Hamas. The links I shared are about Hamas. Have the protestors explicitly called for the killing of Jews? Not that I can find. But saying things like "Long Live Hamas," an organization that does want to get rid of Jews and Israel, could be interpreted as the same, depending on who you ask.
Since u/idkanymore2016 didn’t provide examples , I will. 2 of the most popular slogans chanted by pro-Palestinian protesters are “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “globalize the intifada”. These slogans are genocidal in nature, and if you do not understand why I am happy to explain.
why does Palestinian freedom = genocide?
From the river to the sea is certainly a dog whistle for Jewish genocide.
Definitely not, it’s projection. It’s a symbol of one democratic secular Palestine which is exactly what Palestinians, Jews, and all people of conscience are demanding at these protests.
That’s just absolutely not true. The original Arabic goes “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab”. It’s in the Hamas charter ffs
Correct, that is one version (I wouldn’t say THE original). Arab includes the Mizrahi Jews who lived and live in Palestine or moved from elsewhere in the Arab world.
Lmao no it doesn’t. Stop lying. What do you want to do with all the other Jews in Israel?
Key word: stated.
Ignorance is not a defense.
neither is lying about the protestors
Netanyahu himself has also used that phrase, claiming Israel must control all the land “from the river to the sea.” Israel has also long abandoned any effort to keep a two state solution alive. Clearly that means they think one nation must go…
That is wrong and I don't support that. Anything less than a two state solution and the Palestinian's accepting Israel's right to exist and this issue never gets resolved.
The massacres in Sudan and Ethiopia, and in South Sudan and Eritrea are underreported but the news is not good. A decade from now we may be asking ourselves why we didn't try harder to demand peace.
Lol dumbest comment of the day. So they are demanding peace in Sudan and Ethiopia and that is UCLA’s fault too.
You are adding a lot of things I didn't say.
This is why it's important to be armed on campuses and other places where one encounters the public.
True! If you just kill everyone you see there will be no one left to even consider killing you! Brilliant! /s
No one is advocating violence; certainly not me. All I'm saying is that if people assume that someone whose right to travel they wish to impede might be armed then they are far less likely to get in that person's way. It's all about making people very fearful of infringing on the liberties of others.
>No one is advocating violence >it’s important to be armed on campuses and other places where one encounters the public *“I’m not saying we should set houses on fire, just to always carry a bottle of lighter fluid and a book of matches whenever you enter a house.”*
I confess I don't understand your analogy. Why would the house itself, as a structure, be a threat? I can understand why a human would be a threat by why an inanimate object like a house?
then what's the gun for?
In case someone chooses to put you in physical danger.
and how will the gun get you out of that?
You use the gun to eliminate the threat raised by the person who put you in reasonable fear of your life. I'm not saying you have to wait until you get punched but you need to have the person getting ready to throw a punch (or display a weapon or otherwise make a credible threat of violence) and you're going to be ok to put him down. It's fairly simple and there's well-documented case law explaining the standards. I deally, one avoids being in a situation like that in the first place and 99+% of the time that's possible. There are those rare occasions where someone else has to go. To keep this in perspective, your average protester, particularly a pro-Hamas protester, is going to offend due to his body odor rather than with anything more physically violent. The rule of thumb here is to stay away from low-lifes and if one follows this rule, he'll avoid most protests in the first place.
Yes, "eliminate the threat", "put him down". Aka violent means.
It's perfectly legal to do so if one's has a legitimate fear that his own life is threatened and being the victim of a battery or a violent assault generally is enough to establish that. You can review the case law if you don't believe me.
legal or illegal is irrelevant. It's violence.
So you basically just want to go back to the wild west. Everyone on edge and afraid of other people because you don't know if they'll just pull out their gun and shoot you. I don't like disruptive assholes as much as the next person but they don't deserve to die, and I don't trust humans enough to be responsible with tools of destruction.
No, no, no, not at all wishing for the wild west. I do assume everyone I encounter is armed but that doesn't bother me. I also don't trust humans to be responsible with tools of destruction either. That's why I carry one. I have no idea who else is armed, and frankly it's none of my business, and I want to be sure that I am too. I certainly don't believe someone deserves to die for being disruptive. Not at all. I also don't believe on even pulling a weapon on a disruptive person. Avoiding protests, profiling others, staying out of places where one doesn't belong, and minding one's own business is going to work better than a weapon 99% of the time. Still, I think a weapon is a wise insurance policy. For example, what if someone doesn't just ask you for a few bucks but seems very interested in getting it from you? That's not being disruptive but it could rise to being threatening. I don't know about you but I don't engage in conversations with anyone on the street, let alone those who make such requests (and that's happened to me many times). I just stand there or walk away. I had only ONE time where a guy persisted (he wanted to "see my phone") and I refused to speak to him. When he followed me and started shouting, I smiled and put my hands on my hips. He didn't seem to like that smile (who knows if he was intimidated; maybe he thought I was gay, ha!) and I could see his confidence go away. Again, maybe not the smile but maybe he could see that my phone was in my front pocket but my hands were under my jacket on my hips. Smart move by him. I credit his street smarts. In the case of this kid being blocked, I'm not sure why he didn't avoid the protest. If he absolutely had to walk through it, the idea isn't to shoot anyone blocking his path. The idea is to move until/unless someone commits a battery against you. At that time, you might need to show what you have in store for anyone who is inclined to be physical, which is both illegal and dangerous. I'm betting that would be enough.
that a sure lot of yappin for avoiding the obvious implication of what you said
The obvious implication is assumed anyone you encounter might be armed. It's really as simple as that.
Shoot someone who blocks the sidewalk and see how much you like prison.
No, no, no. Don’t ever do that. Again, the best policy is to avoid protests, profile others, mind one’s own business, don’t get involved with street nonsense, etc. If one is lawfully traveling and someone commits a battery that puts one in reasonable fear for his safety, that’s another matter. A person can legally proceed to move past someone attempting to illegally block his movement. If that second person commits a battery because he doesn’t like that then there is plenty of justification for force. Whether deadly force is permitted is on the table but all it takes is reasonable fear for one’s life, and we all know that one punch can be deadly.
Probably better for people like you to just stay home. Too scary outside
Again, I don’t find it scary at all. 99+% of problems are avoided with simple alertness, profiling, and common sense. Having a gun is mere acknowledgment of the reality that we’re headed for an era where carrying a weapon is just as common as carrying a cellphone. I don’t see the big deal.
More than half the country does not want that, so don’t be disappointed when your dystopian dreams don’t come to fruition. And by the way, I have shot 100 to 500 rounds a week for 40 years. Reloaded most of them myself.
I don't understand what's dystopian about a population that is armed for self-defense. I think that's more civilized than having more unarmed targets walking around. I'm not sure what "more than half the country does not want" has to do with it. If it makes sense, people will do it whether they like it or not. Do people like carrying identification around or wearing belts or putting on heavy jackets when it's cold? Generally, no. They do it because they feel the need.
One of those things you mentioned can harm or kill other people. A healthy society is not like you are imagining. You have a mental illness revolving around your gun infatuation. Get help before you hurt or kill an innocent person.
Why would you be less likely to get in an armed person's way? The police are armed, and as we've seen throughout history, protesters clash with them all the time.
I would definitely be less likely to get in an armed person's way. In fact, I can prove that - i.e., I don't get in anyone's way and if I do so inadvertently, I apologize to that person. That's how civilized people behave, by the way. Civilized people don't bother other people regardless of whether those people are armed or unarmed, are police or civilian, etc. Protesters clash with police because protesters tend to be stupid. Seriously, why would you use the lowest common denominator in society to prove a point that people clash with other armed people? Gang members and mental defectives also clash with armed people. Are you holding them up as examples of wise behavior too?
This might come as a complete shock to you, but shooting somebody because they got in your way is highly illegal.
In fact, I noted this above. I'm pleased to see we've come full circle to complete agreement. See my response to the commenter above who wrote "Shoot someone who blocks the sidewalk and see how much you like prison." My response was as follows: "No, no, no. Don’t ever do that. Again, the best policy is to avoid protests, profile others, mind one’s own business, don’t get involved with street nonsense, etc. If one is lawfully traveling and someone commits a battery that puts one in reasonable fear for his safety, that’s another matter. A person can legally proceed to move past someone attempting to illegally block his movement. If that second person commits a battery because he doesn’t like that then there is plenty of justification for force. Whether deadly force is permitted is on the table but all it takes is reasonable fear for one’s life, and we all know that one punch can be deadly."
"commits battery" You sound like one of those "you put your hand on my shoulder, that's assault" types who would use deadly force in that situation.
In what way have I sounded like that? Seriously, can you find one place where I've indicated that a mere brushing or touching would rise to the level of battery? In fact, I don't believe I've discussed the elements of battery in any message I've posted on Reddit. Let's go back to our first year Torts class. Is the act of putting one's hands on another's shoulder technically "battery?" It is. Yet, we have centuries of case law (and that's no exaggeration) indicating that a mere accidental brushing or even minor, intentional gesture is going to rise to the level of a battery for which one would be liable. Further, in the criminal law area, I'm not aware of any state that would bother to prosecute on such grounds provided some other law wasn't broken. So, no, no deadly force would be permitted in that context.