Violence erupted at the University of California, Los Angeles after pro-Israeli counter-demonstrators attacked a pro-Palestinian campus encampment. Bubbling tensions on the campus boiled over following the alleged breach of a “buffer zone” between the rival groups.
“Law enforcement simply stood at the edge of the lawn and refused to budge as we screamed for their help,” UC Divest at LA, a group involved in the encampment, said in a statement.
Fucking disgusting
ACAB.
Well trained by the IDF, they act exactly the same as when settlers attack Palestinians. They’ll only intervene if you fight back.
I guess since the police have shown they are not willing to protect the people, the people must take the responsibility of their safety and security upon themselves.
But we mustn’t have evil guns!! The police will protect us, I’m certain of it!
Liberals will never, ever prevail against the fascists unless they pull their collective head out of their collective ass. News flash kids: The fascists are perfectly willing to use violence. And they know you are not.
So let me make sure I understand your point: the pro-Palestinian protestors should have opened fire and killed the counter-protestors?
What’s wrong with self-defense?
Yeah, what’s wrong with killing people? As long as you have an excuse that’s good enough for you, you should always be able to kill as many people as you can. /s
It’s going to happen eventually. Regardless of what the current protested issue is. It’s probably a natural inevitable next step. Hope things unfuck themselves before that though.
I also find it very sad that it is turning sour but I find comfort in the fact that most of the fascist thugs I’ve seen are cowards who only find the courage to be violent in overwhelming force and numbers imbalances. Peaceful students who are known to not own guns are easy targets.
Nobody was arguing against self defense
A rhetorical question implying shooting bands of thugs attacking a peaceful protest is somehow far fetched is eerily similar to arguing against self defense
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: “🤔🤔🤔”[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
Jeez, it’s almost like there’s a difference between self defense using fists when attacked by fists versus gunning down an unarmed group of people. Yeah, if you are one person ganged up on by a bunch of people, maybe MAYBE self defense using a gun is justified (unless you started the fight, then that’s on you), but arguing that it was justified in this case is bloodthirsty and sick.
News Flash: it’s possible to want sensible gun control laws AND meaningful police reform. Most of us are capable of holding more the one thought in our head, capable of setting more than one goal, and that doesn’t make us idiots or hypocrites. Validating their violence with more violence would make us hypocrites (and idiots) and is not the only means of achieving our goals.
Edit: are you seriously suggesting that the protesters should be armed?! or is this just an attempt to muddy the waters by bringing up a conversation about gun control?
Guns being present would have only resulted in many MANY deaths. That’s what you want?
I have seen a lot of shalafi’s comments in the past and I think the answer to that question is “yes.”
Nah. You have to do it right, that’s all. Everyone mudt show up in plate armor open carrying fighting rifles. This is what the right has done, and more importantly it also has worked for the left (see: protecting drag queens from right wing protests). You don’t instigate shit. Just stand there. If you’re heavily armed, out in the open, and peaceful, the cops and counter protests can’t make up an excuse to start shit, and they are extremely unmotivated to do so.
I want people to use their right to defend themselves instead of licking boots.
If it’s the attackers, then yeah, thats the point. Guns are a deterrent.
Guns are NOT a deterrent. They’re an escalation and most often an unnecessary one.
Nuclear weapons are an escalation, an effective one at that.
Ah yes. Nothing describes a gun better then splitting atoms at the subatomic level.
Ah yes, nothing wins an argument better than not understanding it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
What a deterrent
This is an uninstructive conversation. We do not need this sort of shit stirring about this topic because it is important.
Do not show up to a protest with a gun either alone or unannounced. Thats just Rittenhouse behaviour. Be a part of a militia or with some group, and contact the event organizers before arriving. They’ll probably tell your group to wait in a near by location and to be called when needed.
Also getting beat up is the point of these protests. Columbia unreasonably responded with violence against their own students and faculty. It was a total blunder that they made habitually. Making them fascists drop their masks for everyone to see is the goal here.
Based
Ask Mark Hughes about what happens when you show up armed to a protest.
What would have the police and the media done after that?
Michael Reinoehl killed a fash, then the police executed him in a suburban neighborhood. There’s no scenario where a leftwing person kills a fascist in self defense and their police buddies say it was a good shooting.
On brand.
Supporters of Israeli genocide commit violence.
I’m shocked.
Shocked and appalled.
This is so out of character for genocidalists.zionists turned into genocidalists. it all starts with God.
I was sat down reading this and still ended up on the floor in pure shock.
Jewish Federation Los Angeles meanwhile blamed the university’s chancellor for allowing “an environment to be created over many months that has made students feel unsafe”.
The group demanded that the encampment be cleared and that UCLA meet leaders of the Jewish community.
Fucking hell, this is such a callous response. In any other situation, the group representing the side that just had masked vigilantes attack peaceful demonstrators would make amends. “These people don’t represent our movement. We disavow them and what they stand for.” And so on.
I see they’re taking a page from Israel’s book: refuse to apologize, defend unprovoked violence, and blame the victims on top of everything else.
No wonder anti-semitism is ramping up. The JFLA not helping themselves with that one.
“We’re allowed to beat you if you question our genocide” is certainly a hell of a tagline
Your school’s protests against violence is making the school unsafe and therefore it’s the schools fault for the violence that falls upon it. That’s basically what they said.
Lol, it’s not my fault I’m beating you in the face. It’s the school’s fault I’m beating you in the face.
meet leaders of the Jewish community.
Never leaders of the palestinian community…
All these police attacks on Pro-Palestine rallies are just bringing more attention that would have faded away.
And the unprovoked violent attacks will cause more people to start to question the Israel war and the US support of it. People will start to wonder why supporting normal Palestine people is an idea to attack peaceful rallies and to take away the right to protest.
All these police attacks on Pro-Palestine rallies
In this case they weren’t attacked by Police.
Or the police weren’t wearing their uniforms???
I’m willing to accept that as a possibility but I’ve seen it argued the other way too. That since the Pro-Palestinian side hasn’t been getting pushed down at UCLA like other places “something” needed to happen in order to increase visibility.
In fairness the various University of California campuses have been pretty laid back with these protests to the point that they’d refused to call in Law Enforcement at all on the LA campus until things got out of hand last night. Even then it seems that Law Enforcement slow rolled their response.
At this point who the hell knows; could be some of Column A and a little of Column B.
You wont hear mainstream media question why the police retracted a short moment before pro-Israeli thugs stormed in the encampment and attack the peaceful protesters, they came back in to only arrest the pro-palestine protesters. the establishment has payed to end the protests and establishment media are only parading the side of the story the have been paid for to.
Lemmy needs a payed vs paid bot
They sealed the deck with tar to prevent pesky protestors from leaking in.
So now I am left with no sources and no idea if it is a real thing or not. One thing
twitterx has for it is the readers context.However idk if the same would work in relatively one sided isolated env
The descriptions suggest the counter protesters are not students but people whipped up from outside the school by media.
We know why students wouldn’t have jobs but who the fuck are these people attacking the kids?
Here’s a video. Some are middle aged men attacking the students. https://x.com/ryangrim/status/1785622283161067568
Often I think, while smashing things and screaming “FUCK YOU OLD LADY!”, that I must definitely be in the right.
More fucking Rittenhouses I assume
These idiots couldn’t answer a single fucking question about Israel or Palestine but the people protesting are “libs” and the brainwashing of “my tribe vs their tribe” appears to be as effective as ever
The same cops that attack protesters during the day, just off duty. Still paid overtime, somehow, because reasons.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Isn’t it interesting how Israel and pro-Israel people apply the exact same tactic?! Let’s attack innocent people. Whether it’s bombing innocent civilians or violently attacking peaceful protestors. It’s so telling. They are rotten to their core.
That’s what 80 years of cultural righteousness gets you. You start to think you can do no wrong.
Cue up the “I learned it from you” meme because the USA showed Israel how it’s done.
It’s just plain old Fascism.
Etnic/nationalistic/cultural righteousness (aka nationalistic racism) is one of the foundational blocks of it along with violence.
Unlike Europe, Israel hasn’t realy evolved in social and political terms from the kind of thinking so prevalent in the early XX century.
You can have violence from the police, or you can have counter-protest violence. The police have proven time and again they will stand back and do nothing while the people protesting for any liberal idea (sad that the left seems to be the only one interested in things like peace, equality, and justice) get beaten by the right.
The Palestinian homeland isn’t even a liberal idea though.
True, but being anti genocide, anti colonialism, and anti war often are. Just so happens that these ideas and Palestinian statehood are simpatico at the moment.
I mean you could have protestor violence, but for some reason that’s just outright dismissed as lunacy.
That’s when the police beat you.
If there aren’t regular right wingers beating protesters, the police step in and do it.
That’s when the police beat you.
Police will teargas and beat you regardless. When has exclusively nonviolent protest ever worked?
Give The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Gelderloos a read. To make it ridiculously easy here’s a copy: http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=the+failure+of+nonviolence&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def
Nonviolent protest works when the violence against the nonviolent becomes the impetus for change. That whole Jesus taking the beating to point out the problems in the system has a long history whether you believe in religion on not. Probably why we still talk about non-violent protesters like Gandhi or MLK, too.
That’s not to say that violence doesn’t have its place, like the French Revolution. But that’s the shortcut. You forcefully break the system and rebuild it right now, rather than the long game of changing the system from within.
Checking out the author, he seems much more French Revolution type (even though being an anarchist really puts him at odds with any resulting government), looks like he’s spent a bit of time in jail for some protests, none of them violent.
Pacifism did not work for Ghandi or MLK. They were both murdered by conservatives and the problems they championed persisted long after their deaths.
Conservatives see pacifism as a weakness to exploit and an invitation to attack. In fact, never in history has pacifism defeated conservatism. Action is always needed to cure an infection of conservatism.
While both only directly participated in non-violent protest themselves, Gandhi and MLK both participated in overarching struggles that were most definitely supported by a diversity of tactics, including violent protest.
In my opinion the reason we still talk about these individuals today, without any focus given to the violent action also employed in support of their same cause, is because there is no material difference between complacency and exclusively non-violent protest in the ability of either to manifest actual change.
I think this is a good example of how vigilantes often work to support the state’s goals when it can’t legally/easily complete their goals.
For every fascistic government still bound by laws, there will be fascists willing to ignore them to support it. See this. See the KKK carrying out lynchings on people who are barely escaping the grasp of the state. See the settlers illegally settling on Palestinian land to carry out the state’s goals of ethnic cleansing.
Hate is a powerful tool used by fascists to rally people to violence. Every one of these attackers should be arrested and thrown in prison.
Hate is a strong motivator but it uses up too much fuel and burns itself out. To see it only as hate is a bit reductionist. You can only use hate to motivate yourself for so long.
Fear, envy, and uncertainty/fear of the future are much more longstanding motivators used to continue fascist creep.
Regardless, fascists align themselves with the state. The police often can’t get away with crushing protesters without suffering bad PR, and risking strengthening popular support when images of police brutality evoke memories of past brutalities.
Fascist vigilantes don’t care about PR, and they might get the support of the police (or they get the police’s non-support of their enemies) or even the government
Vigilante porn is too useful as propaganda. Americans, especially, love the imagery of a tough person who steps up and does “the right thing,” where traditional tools of enforcement are weakened by corruption, incompetence, or policy. Doesn’t matter if it’s Dirty Harry, Batman, or some Christian Nationalist with a sharpened flagpole.
In situations like this, it’s common that the vigilantes are not actually rogue. They’re working together with the police. They might be friends, they might be off duty cops, and they could easily be messaging each other about what ought to be done when.
I don’t have any specific evidence that this situation is as described above, but we know that many others have been and will be.
Yep.
If we travel back in time a little bit you will find obvious examples, such as the police working directly with the klan (specifically the 2nd klan) and instances of sherrifs deputizing people to allow them to carry out extreme violence against bipoc
Don’t need to go all the way back to the Klan: Video shows Portland officers made deal with far-right group leader
People supporting genocide are violent.
What a surprise.
“Counter-protesters”?
This is an example of a news organization trying so hard to be neutral that they end up taking a side.
Fuck Granite! Fuck Cement! Fuck Wood! Fuck All Counters!
All Counters Are Bad!
I see you
What am I doing right now?
Ew gross
It’s okay. This counter isn’t for food.
deleted by creator
That’s the term. They were counter-protesting the pro-Palestinian protesters. Sorry, what’s the problem?
Charging sleeping people with baseball bats isn’t normally considered a form of protest. Masked attackers would be a more neutral description.
When we protested the Iraq War very similarly, someone hung a noose in the camp the first night.
After that I was the one to stay up all night keeping watch.
If you had read past “counter-protesters”, it goes on to say, “…attack pro-Palestinian camp”
Yep, that was one of the sentences that showed how silly it is to describe attackers as protesters but there are plenty more.
They were there counter-protesting and then attacked the pro-palenstine protesters. Why do you object to an accurate description of the events?
It seems like you’re having a difficult time understanding this, maybe I can help. If another group of people showed up, and they had signs, and maybe bullhorns, and they started protesting the opposite of what the original people were protesting, they would be counter-protesting. Some heckling could even be involved.
When they show up wearing masks and wielding baseball bats, they are not counter-protestors. They are violent criminals. They did not show up to protest. They showed up to insight violence.
It seems like your having a difficult time understanding this
Im not, and your childish insults don’t make you right. There’s not dress code for protesters, and your No True Scotsman fallacy doesn’t win your argument any points. The Counter-protesters were counter-protesting, then they attacked the protesters. It’s a simple concept to grasp.
Just because it doesn’t tell the narrative you wish it to tell isn’t my fault. It’s just the facts as they happened, not an opinion piece.
Now go insult someone else for their ability to read.
Protestors: Less filling!
Counter Protestors: Taste great!
not
Protestors: Stop funding genocide, my college!
Counter Protestors: We’re going to beat you with bats while you sleep!
you disingenuous, festering carbuncle.
you disingenuous, festering carbuncle.
Name-calling when you can’t come up with an argument. Typical
“Fireworks and tear gas flew through the night sky as masked counter-protesters attempted to tear down barricades, and struck campers with sticks and bats.”
That’s counter protesting in your world?
As I said in another comment:
If you had read past “counter-protesters”, it goes on to say, “…attack pro-Palestinian camp”
“Counter-protester” describes who they were not what they were doing. That’s what the word “attack” is for. If you read the article it contains even more details.
I think people are suggesting the “counter protesters” aren’t “protesting” anything, they’re just straight up a mob attacking kids.
I understand that. That’s why I explained what the words mean.
The term that fits here is actually Terrorists.
I wasn’t making an argument, simply explaining what this headline meant.
You’re welcome to publish your own news articles if you think you can do better, but it doesn’t seem you could be objective.
Yes, we had established that the headline’s use of words was wrong, and then you came to chime in afterwards to argue in their favor. Nobody was confused about their intent before you came here. You added nothing but to contradict the previous user.
Yes, we had established that the headline’s use of words was wrong
No, several people here feel that way. You and others have that opinion. Nobody gets do decide their own facts, however. But this is a news article, not an opinion piece, and objective reporting of facts is what was called for. You are free to disagree about that, but it doesn’t make you “right”.
and then you came to chime in afterwards to argue in their favor
Wrong. I didn’t argue in anyone’s “favor”. I merely pointed out what I said above: this is a news article, not an opinion piece, which reported on a group of protesters being attacked by a group of counter-protesters. How you or anyone may feel about that or those involved is opinion and doesn’t belong in a news article.
Nobody was confused about their intent before you came here. You added nothing but to contradict the previous user.
Well, that’s just demonstrably false, and if you don’t like that, or the contents of the article, that’s what the downvote button is for, but I didn’t write the article and am not to blame for it’s contents.
I’m seeing this comment pattern a lot lately where they take apart and quote the previous comment in an argument, often using nonsequitur bullshit responses. Is this the latest bot, or do the kids these days lack all originality? I don’t do that shit. I assume you already know what your previous comment was without quoting it back to you. Maybe I’m giving you too much credit?
I’m seeing this response a lot lately. Can’t write a rational counter argument, so out come the insults and/or accusations of being a bot.
Classy.
FWIW, I don’t hold it against you. This is a terrible, horrible subject and series of events, and I’m trying very hard not to be overly emotional about all of this. I very much do support the pro-Palestinian protesters, but it also think it’s important to keep facts straight and to keep a cool head when discussing these events.
I’m not your enemy.
Jesus Christ. All over students protesting that their university is openly supporting a regime committing genocide and crimes against humanity.
Obviously it’s the zionists who attack others
deleted by creator
Police Prevent Crime! I mean Police Protect us from Crime! I mean Police Solve Crimes! I mean
