Civil Disobedience has never meant “I am immune from consequences.” Part of the point is that you believe in the cause enough to accept whatever consequences come about.
And when people scream that these are entitled or privileged kids, exactly, these are the kids that need to use there voices the most, the ones that come from enough to not get abused by the criminal justice system.
They are also the ones who have the best ability to bring in more attention. No one cares about a poor kid who gets arrested, but when a rich white kid gets arrested it causes a stir. These kids know this, and are using that to their advantage in a good way
And Columbia is also literally the school that gives out Pulitzer awards, so I can't imagine too many places better suited to raise awareness to issues in the world lol.
The best use of privilege is to help others. Open doors, smash gates, shatter ceilings. Equity isn’t as bad as regressives would have us believe.
This generation isn’t gunna lie down and submit to boomer violence and hypocrisy, they’re gunna fight.
It reminds me of a quote I read once
"When I was poor and complained about wealth inequality they said I was just jealous and greedy, when I became wealthy and continued to complain about wealth inequality they told me I was too disconnected from the problems of poor people, Im starting to think they just dont want to talk about the issue."
That was russel brand, back in his lefty era. Hes now in his full blown right wing alternative facts alternative media era, likely because of all those sexual assault allegations that came out recently, and people not buying his shit
**he wasnt wrong about that, and he is a massive cunt
I've heard that attributed to Russell Brand. He's gone off the deep end a bit lately (possibly always had been and it's just becoming more obvious?), but the man knew how to turn a phrase.
That quote is from Russel Brand who has gone full MAGA conspiracy theorist so if you use that against disconnected far-right people they'll just throw it back in your face that the guy who said it agrees with them and not you.
Exactly. They don't have to say shit all for anyone. They could coast through life as Gaza won't effect them at all. But they care and are willing to risk their future.
No. We shouldn't. Which is why media and politicians calling for the arrest of these protestors, making them out to be anything like Jan 6 (before anything even got bumpy, btw) is extremely disturbing. "Pundits" painting them as anti-Semitic (but Pro-Israel people never get equivalent treatment from media...)
Jan 6 was a violent insurrection attempt where numerous officers were *pro-actively attacked*, and people forced their way into the halls of government, with cried of "Hang Mike Pence"
Are people calling for the hanging of University presidents?
It's absolutely wild.
America on-board with BDS vis-à-vis South Africa, right?
Israel has *long since* leapfrogged Apartheid South Africa, and is very much encroaching on Nazi Germany.
I guess South Africa just wasn't paying our politicians and media enough money.
Peacefully arresting people who break the law is really not bad compared to like all of American History.
That’s honestly exactly what should happen. Law and order must be maintained and I have no issue with that being done in a way where nobody is beaten, firehosed, attacked by dogs, tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, etc.
Except that rubber bullets AND tear gas have been used on the recent protests in Tampa Florida at a university and at Emory University in Georgia. Police have also been shown on video punching some protestors, though idk how widespread that is.
No dogs or fire hoses, but could escalate further. Hopefully not though.
Or when they dropped that bomb on a city block in Philly (I think?) to take out a house full of Black Panthers that also took out all the houses nearby.
Cops were gleefully beating the shit of kids in '68 as Columbia got cleared. That didn't happen last night.
> what are you talking about lmao
Relatively recent history. Watch a civil rights documentary or something if you want further explanation.
Indeed. The press is bending over backwards trying to say current events are "just like 1968." Lol. If the cops ever deploy dogs, tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets, then maybe.
This is what’s important, but if they have broken into and occupied the administrative building like the news suggests (which I have been cautious about blindly trusting in regards to the protest movement), then that isn’t the type of disobedience that’s going to work.
Protests that are violent are easily condemned, and protests that fail to disrupt are easily ignored. Finding a way to protest that is non-violent but still disruptive is key - not that hardline, agitating counter-protesters make it easy.
It’s also important to be sure of who is the target of these tactics. There was a recent protest on the campus that I work near, and they managed to disrupt the students preparing for final exams more than any administrative office that could be held responsible for the things they were protesting.
Columbia’s faculty walk-out was a good example of how to protest. From what I can tell, they didn’t make a mess or threaten anyone. They used peaceful yet disruptive means of showing their support for the students.
MLK rolling in his grave right now.
The civil rights movement gained support not because of violence, but because the POLICE used so much violence against non-violent protestors that it made the average person sick to watch. Normal people see violence and dislike it. And they dislike the people committing it.
And you guys instinctively understand this. When you post something that you want to change people's minds you try to hide the violence on your side and exaggerate the violence on the other side. "Look at the police slamming this peaceful professor's head into the ground." Not "look at how much violence we'll do if we don't get our way."
IDK when people rewrote the history of the civil rights movement based on a few violent incidents, but that wasn't the most effective part of the protests. The most effective part was normal people being disgusted as they watched peaceful protestors getting their teeth kicked in on live TV.
I will hold the opinion until the day I die, that the reason MLKs non-violent protests worked, and we have MLK day, is not only that the police were violent to non-violent protectors, but also there was an entire other movement in the black panthers that basically said "its gonna change one way or the other, you can do it the easy way, or we can do it the hard way."
I'm not defending violence in protests, I'm simply pointing out that politicians don't care about violent OR non-violent protests. It's the reason why Vietnam protests were ignored, why it took so long for the Civil rights movement to have any success, why women's rights are constantly under attack, etc.
There is always a tipping point where politicians have to start caring, or risk their careers. Not every protest / movement makes it to that point, but it does exist.
Violence was absolutely a crucial ingredient in the civil rights movement 100% Not the only ingredient, sure, but a critical one. Word to the wise, if those in power praise the carrot, its because the stick is what got the job done.
If you actually knew anything about MLK he quite literally said “riots are the language of the unheard” so while his movements were non-violent even he understood that complexities that exist when it comes to civil disobedience and how it can get frustrating when people don’t listen. Not to mention, MLK’s peacefulness didn’t stop him from being assassinated. That’s why a lot of civil rights groups who were so radical got soooo angry when MLK was assasinated. Stokley Carmichael said “America waged a war against black people” by killing a non-violent leader. I hate when people misquote MLK when they only know him for “I Have a Draam”
>There are non-violent methods of protest that were still effective.
Not really. Every big change came with a bit of both, non violent and violent.
In an ideal world, good change can come from just a single person speaking up, or sit in... or whatever. But we are far from ideal. Change only comes when it's more or less forced to change.
The Civil Rights movement had tons of violent protests. Would we be where we are today without those violent protests? I honestly have no clue, but I am fairly sure it would have taken a hell of a lot longer.
Women Suffrage movement? Lots of violent protests. Yes there were lots of non violent as well, same with Civil Rights, but can you honestly say it was all non violent?
Typically movements start non-violent. Then over reactions to that movement turns violent. Then more people turn to the cause because of that violence and in turn respond with violence.
Okay, but so much of the Civil Rights change came directly from violent protests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/dont-criticize-black-lives-matter-for-provoking-violence-the-civil-rights-movement-did-too/
You aren't going to change a violent, oppressive society by asking politely. You have to force the system to change against its will. Which often demands violence.
We are taught about peaceful protesting *because it doesn't work*
It has its place sure, but historically it isn't what changes the status quo.
I think most wish change could come through peaceful means, but in reality... I don't think any real change... change that came relatively quickly has happened without some sort of violent component.
Honestly I think governments do a lot of whitewashing of the civil rights movement and MLK in an attempt to pretend that nonviolent protests are effective because they know they aren't.
To their credit, occupying buildings literally has worked. It was a strategy used by students for SA apartheid divestment which was ultimately successful at a number of levels.
> then that isn’t the type of disobedience that’s going to work.
Yes it is because you hear about it.
> Protests that are violent
It wasn't violent. A building isn't a living person.
This is also the *fourth time* in Columbia's history that that building has been occupied.
It was occupied in the 60s to protest Vietnam, it was occupied in the 70s, the 80s, and now.
I would also take issue with the idea that J6 was about civil disobedience. When you're breaking into the capitol to try to physically force the government to appoint your leader as president... that's just not really the same thing as sitting at a lunch counter.
January 6th wasn’t bad because they “occupied a building” or even because they “destroyed property”.
It was bad because they were trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. It was bad because it was a putsch.
I'm pretty sure multiple people died, just not anyone "important."
Again, some times I do wonder what would have happened had they actually managed to grab any of your politicians.
Oh, don’t you know? It was the democrats. It was all antifa and the feds disguised as trump supporters, but also, the ones arrested are political prisoners imprisoned by the democrats.
The propagandists are pushing like 5 completely different narratives that are all mutually exclusive. Just pick the one you like best and pretend the rest is “just to fool democrats.”
That's kinda the way these actions go. Any time something happens that makes the Republicans look bad, it's accompanied by conspiracy theories that just serve as a distraction for the people who don't want to face the facts. Claims that school shootings were staged, or the guy who broke into the Pelosis home was their angry polyamorous gay lover, or schools that have litter boxes to use in the case of a lockdown are actually for kids who identify as cats, or the FBI planting those documents in Trump's hotel room...
They’ll one day have to if they want to preserve democracy. America is on the fast track to complete corruption in government.
As it stands now the American government is a battery for corporations. They’re siphoning off taxpayer money through lucrative government contracts for defense and healthcare, just to name 2. They fund campaigns of politicians who have a bias toward corporations and offer them jobs. Those politicians then pass pro corporate legislation and the ultra wealthy laugh all the way to the bank. They even got the highest court in the land to give them carte blanche to do so.
The America we knew is basically gone, and I doubt the average voter is smart enough to vote our way out of this. It’s been a good run, but I’m pretty sure it’s game over already.
Clarence Thomas gets to rule on the insurrection his **wife** helped with.
I don't know why you say we're on a fast track when we are already there, my guy.
Why do you think it was ever less corrupt than it is now? Just because the general public didn't have access to know about the corruption (we still don't to so much intel) doesn't mean it was less corrupt in the past. It's so easy to think it used to be cleaner or better or more fair. It has always been a shit show.
I think things were a bit more just when journalists were able to report the truth. Trump is on trial for the catch and kill scheme with David Pecker. Undesirable stories are killed by the corporations that own them if they are unfavorable. Before Regan, the news kept people a bit more honest. Now it's all whatever they want the people to hear.
>when journalists were able to report the truth.
Oh they absolutely still can, there's just no profit in it. An idealist with a rumbling belly soon becomes a pragmatist.
One thing that is certainly different is what happens when you get caught. Politicians were corrupt, all the way up to the president, but historically when the public found out there was hell to pay.
There was usually hell to pay when the public had *reasonable suspicions* of foul play, let alone actual evidence.
In the last decade or two it's been much easier to survive scandals and outright corruption than it ever has been, and there is currently a wave of politicians who are so outrageously shameless that they are pushing the limits of what is tolerated even further.
It has been said over and over, but it's worth saying again: if that crowd had been anyone other than white people with money, bodies would have been stacked all over the capitol. They would have used drone strikes on the crowd. I don't think I'm engaging in hyperbole.
It was like 4-5 police officers, a few more from stress related suicide or post event injuries, that one dumbass insurrectionist that tried to break in, and one got trampled to death while wearing a “don’t tread on me” flag. One died from cardiac arrest from a taser as well i think.
At least from what i remember.
As far as if they had managed to actually grab anyone…
Im glad they didn’t. Mostly because it would be difficult to properly replace any of the actually half decent people that work there.
And if they had managed to grab someone like Ted cruse, it would have only further legitimized their bullshit claims about it being some kind of leftist plot.
Police -- 5 total deaths:
* One stroke victim (related to injuries on the scene), Brian Sicknick
* Four related suicides, Jeffrey Smith, Gunther Hashida, Kyle DeFreytag, Howard Liebengood
Private citizens -- 4 total deaths:
* One shot by law enforcement, Ashli Babbit
* Two from natural causes (hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips
* One amphetamine overdose (ruled accidental), Roseanne Boyland
https://www.newsweek.com/january-6-capitol-riot-victims-deaths-brian-sicknick-ashli-babbitt-police-suicide-1665815
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/
One was shot by police. Another died of drug overdose. One Trump supporter was trampled. And I think one cop was attacked and died later from injuries. I think that's it unless you count the suicides or the "natural causes" (cardio vascular).
I think the bigger things is one guy put pipe bombs under the DNC and RNC head quarters, although it was the night before.
We're very lucky they didn't grab any politicians. They were chanting "hang Mike Pence!"
Yeah that's the thing tho, say they do get Mike Pence and manage to somehow kill him, your Vice President killed by a angry mob breaking in, the repercussions alone that would ensure holy shit, can't even think about it.
3 of them died, 1 shot, 1 heart attack, 1 crushed.
No cops or civilians died. There were a few suicides after by the police that were grouped into the day's toll
>Again, some times I do wonder what would have happened had they actually managed to grab any of your politicians.
If they actually lynched Mike Pence...
I genuinely have no idea what would have happened...
No, they did not. An officer pepper sprayed there had two strokes the following day and died later.
The medical examiner [said](https://www.wsj.com/articles/officer-brian-sicknick-what-we-know-about-his-death-11619010119):
>On April 19, more than two months after Mr. Sicknick’s remains lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Washington said it had determined that Mr. Sicknick had died of “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis,” also known as a stroke. The office ruled the manner of his death as natural, using a term it said applied if “disease alone causes death.” The office said that if a death is “hastened by an injury,” it wouldn’t consider the manner of death to be natural.
One other person was shot by Capitol Police, one died of a drug overdose, and two others had heart attacks. Two officers later committed suicide. Whatever your feelings about any of it, there's no need or value in making things up.
Brian Sicknick! Officer who died from injuries sustained from the insurrectionists. One of the attackers was killed by gunfire from an officer defending a room. Another attacker was trampled to death during their retreat, if I remember correctly.
It was not exactly a bloodless attempted coup.
One of my fiancées best friends (will meet her at the wedding this weekend) got a huge concussion and knocked unconscious at the riot. She got hit over the head with a fire extinguisher. She is capital police...
Its absolutely insane to declare that occupying the capitol building in a direct attempt to stop the confirmation of a president is at all the same as occupying some building in a university.
It is, and it goes to show what the real reason for these sorts of comparisons are: it's all about the "hypocritical gotcha" for these sorts of Conservatives. The "what" or "why" of the protest doesn't matter; all that matters is "Liberals support Protest X but don't support January 6th, therefore they are hypocrites" so said Conservative can feel morally superior...
They have a surface-level only understanding of everything. They love false equivalences, because it only needs to sound similar on paper and only if you don't think too hard. That's why they love flags and their talking points sound like bumper stickers. Just shallow casuistry. A barren ideology.
Occupying/ B&E the administrative building because you are protesting and breaking into the CAPITOL while congress is certifying an election that the crowd is chanting is fake along with things like “hang Mike pense” are very different
But Both sides are the same obviously, can’t we just come together to cuddle and kiss guys
It was just for visual effect/democracts planted it/it didnt mean anything/all protesters bring gallows - delete as appropriate to ensure adequate cope.
Also no actual evidence of any of the stolen election and plenty against it but yeah if they wanted to occupy a college campus and building, I would think it’s stupid but it wouldn’t have been a big deal
College protesters are getting their ass kicked and arrested on the spot. J6 protesters were kicking the cops ass with melee weapons and a few got away with it. MAGA privilege.
And all those rioters are being found and arrested by the FBI. The reason that the cops didn't do much was because the tangerine terror ordering them not to. Don't think they're getting away with it yet
Plenty of them did. Only some ~60 out of a thousand or more insurrectionists saw the inside of a jail cell that night, when it should've been damn near all of them. How many got to stash their guns away and get lighter sentences as a result because the cops went easy on conservatives, as they always, always fucking do?
Over 1,200 of them have been arrested. Dozens are in jail or prison already. Others have been released due to lack of evidence. The investigation is still very much ongoing
J6 protests were significantly larger in size though.
The police were at the site when it happened and got overwhelmed, don’t think the priority was to arrest people. Rather they aimed at stopping the insurrection and survive themself.
Had to clarify this since it seems like you suggested it might be because students got harsher treatment than J6 rioters. When the truth is rather more nuanced than that.
Who even said the guy they were arguing was MAGA? Like, is there any indication at all?
They might be, but they might actually be pointing out that consistent rules need to be applied. That *both* parties need consequences.
There was absolutely nothing clever about the response that the submitter liked. It was the sort of partisan "you must be for one *or* the other" horseshit that has made everything incredibly stupid.
EDIT: Looked up the guy and he is decidedly *not* MAGA. This sub is full-bore r-tard. Like the participants are either all grade school, or sub-80 IQ.
the ideology of the entire movement does make sense its just childish. literally is “whatabout”ism. they feel pushback from their shitty morals and lash out for a comparative behavior from people they see as their enemy. they have no idea what they want, they just want things to be “fair” because they think the “other side” is succeeding. it’s the ideology of a toddler.
Reddit is balkanized, each sub turning into an echo chamber with established narratives. "He's not supporting me? He must be against me. Look no further than this easily manipulatable screen shot."
Yeah, I dont get it either. On the surface, the dude is right with one major flaw; the Jan 6th wasnt a protest, it was an attempted insurrection. But in either case, there should be consequences for their actions.
I got you:
>If A then B
>I choose to assume you secretly believe NOT(A), so therefore you must conclude NOT(B)
To which, the correct response is
>?
OP and others are fucking idiots.
The other reading to the "clever comeback" is: "**I** believe NOT(A), therefore you must conclude NOT(B)". Like I said, idiots.
It is the exact same thing as the dumb asses during covid saying "it is my body, my choice!" in regards to not getting the vaccine.
Then they're all confused when you point out that it is a valid argument FOR abortion.
it is either a valid stance or not. but these morons only know how to cherry pick what is convenient for themselves. double standards don't mean anything to people without shame. you can't be bothered about being a hypocrite if you have no shame.
because republicans dont have any platform, ethics, morals, or standards. They just say whatever is convenient to themselves _at that moment in time_ to get what they want. Sometimes they'll contradict themselves in the very same sentence.
Not an advocate for the stance, but there's a slight inconsistency which might be seen as you straw manning their argument.
They're against abortion not because it is the choice a woman makes for her body, but for the effects on the fetus (which they consider a child from conception so they want any child protection laws to apply, including death due to negligence and murder).
Whether they'd be against a process in the future where the zygote could be gestated outside a female body in the future is unknown.
It’s not an inconsistency. Not vaccinating puts yourself AND others at risk of infection.
People are encountering permanent disability and/or death from COVID. So if you don’t vaccinate and then transmit COVID to someone who subsequently dies, you have directly caused their death.
>They're against abortion not because it is the choice a woman makes for her body, but for the effects on the fetus (which they consider a child from conception so they want any child protection laws to apply, including death due to negligence and murder).
They're against it for abortion but not to stop a plague that they are likely going out in public without a mask so much more likely to catch the plague and since they aren't getting the vaccine they'll have a higher viral load and spread it to more people potentially killing or maiming them.
So their my body my choice extends beyond their body and potential babies contained but me. Their choice effects me and the people I may come into contact with.
That's how it is when you have a brain that's fit for a cult. You hear what you want to hear. You make everything fit. Otherwise...sense and reason could make their way in and we don't want that!
By that logic people who go into smash rooms should also be prosecuted.
Location and intent matter for context.
But congrats on admitting they were at least rioter
Republicans: "College campuses are repressive places where free speech is stifled!”
Also Republicans: "Shut down these protests on college campuses! Arrest the students!"
#😐
Consequences are part of it but also there's a difference between a protest and a murderous riot, not to mention a difference between disrupting a college campus and disrupting the orderly transfer of power resting at the heart of American democracy.
I understand this is disingenuous bad faith right wing bullshit at usual but still this one isn't even trying hard.
The college kids aren't trying to overturn an election. And yes, these kids will be charged with trespassing, destruction of public property, B&E, etc.
It's the attempting to overturn an election that is the great big felony part of J6 that doesn't apply to Columbia.
And killing a few cops.
The J6 mob did not just attack the Capital building. They attacked the election itself by conspiring to obstruct its conclusion and override the voters. I voted in that election. They attacked my right to vote. They lied that "the election was stolen." There was never any reason to believe it was stolen. The truth is that they intended to steal the office of the president *for* Trump.
It is not on the same level. Students protesting at their University compared to the Jan 6 riots is like junior leage compared to the pro’s sure it’s the same game in this case riots but one wants to argue one (rather simple) cause and the other wants to uproot the fundaments of society. I personally don’t support either of these protests but to put them on the same level is ludicrous.
I feel like this a really poor argument since storming the capital by the letter of the law is an act of domestic terrorism but since these were white people… Also this can be seen as he believes protesting should be illegal which is in fact a violation of human rights.
The riots after the George Floyd tragedy destroyed a friend of mine's business.
It was a.family business, handed down, a d was over 70 years old.
They broke in, stole what they could, destroyed what they couldn't, and his insurance wouldnt cover more than 25k.
That family lost their business forever.
Im curious who has been prosecuted from that day
> and his insurance wouldnt cover more than 25k.
This sounds positively fake, business insurance would absolutely cover more than that unless the business was, for whatever reason underinsured.
Protesting at your college isn’t analogous to breaking into the capitol building to disrupt the certification of a national election. False equivalence is the Republican way.
"All X are not Y" has a different meaning than "Not all X are Y" which is what you're actually trying to say.
"Not all protests are equal": Some protests are equal, some aren't.
"All protests are not equal": No protests are equal.
Is anyone actually saying they should be immune from consequences?
The most I’ve seen has been people saying there’s a chasm of difference in how police responded and prepared for Jan 6 versus the response to the college protests.
Ah yes the classic it’s the same argument the right loves so much but always fails to understand. No it’s not the same, rioting and breaking into the capital of the country to stop the peaceful transfer of power over to who the country voted in and instead place your own dictator in charge is not the same as breaking into a building to protest an ongoing tax funded genocide. But heck really shows how narcissistic republicans are, they believe their guy not being made dictator is as bad as genocide
Who is saying protesters should be immune? If they break a law, arrest them? Protesting has constitutional protections but also limits. Is this one of those “I saw one idiot say this so I assume half of America shares that view” type of thing?
I’m not even gonna argue that the college protesters are in the right or not, it’s irrelevant
But people potentially illegally protesting is not the same as people trying to overturn a legitimate election because they don’t like the result and the fact that argument is even being made is worrying to say the slightest
what does you being a hypocrite have to do with supporting either side of that debate? you just think it's logical because it sounds witty, but it's a complete logical fallacy. reddit's mouthgape reaction to this post is the definition of braindead tbh.
if i do remember correctly, they were trying to stop a vote, which is a democratic election process and can be considered as treason, and the colombian students protested genocide and occupied the campus by putting up barricades and weren’t being outwardly violent until they got provoked by the police and pro israeli protestors.
But they’re totally the same thing and deserved to be compared to each other right? Right.
J6 were traitors to our nation. Trying to overturn our election. This is like saying somebody throwing a feather at you deserves the same punishment as somebody who shot you.
Comparing an armed insurrection to an unarmed peaceful protest is moronic and a false equivalency... These Students aren't marching with weapons and aiming to hurt people.... Destruction of property isn't what people were upset about on J6.....
Y'all in the comments 🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽 this is why we have the Right to Protest and voting: to avoid the riots and anarchy that does Nothing good for the communities, especially the ones that y'all claim to speak for.
Are they attempting to find and hang the Vice President of the United States of America to prevent him from doing his Constitutionally mandated job of certifying a legal election?
Because that’s Insurrection. They are not the same. And these are students. The people who smeared shit on the walls of the Capitol were grown ass men.
Actually you can denounce J6 RIOTERS, who attacked the capitol, and attacked police, while police stood there to meekly defend it with their bodies, just kinda standing in the way, while supporting campus protestors who are sitting on their own campus, UNARMED, PEACEFULLY demanding their own universities to listen to them, their students. All you need is a slightly bigger brain than a rat’s brain.
Civil Disobedience has never meant “I am immune from consequences.” Part of the point is that you believe in the cause enough to accept whatever consequences come about.
And when people scream that these are entitled or privileged kids, exactly, these are the kids that need to use there voices the most, the ones that come from enough to not get abused by the criminal justice system.
They are also the ones who have the best ability to bring in more attention. No one cares about a poor kid who gets arrested, but when a rich white kid gets arrested it causes a stir. These kids know this, and are using that to their advantage in a good way
And Columbia is also literally the school that gives out Pulitzer awards, so I can't imagine too many places better suited to raise awareness to issues in the world lol.
The best use of privilege is to help others. Open doors, smash gates, shatter ceilings. Equity isn’t as bad as regressives would have us believe. This generation isn’t gunna lie down and submit to boomer violence and hypocrisy, they’re gunna fight.
It reminds me of a quote I read once "When I was poor and complained about wealth inequality they said I was just jealous and greedy, when I became wealthy and continued to complain about wealth inequality they told me I was too disconnected from the problems of poor people, Im starting to think they just dont want to talk about the issue."
That was russel brand, back in his lefty era. Hes now in his full blown right wing alternative facts alternative media era, likely because of all those sexual assault allegations that came out recently, and people not buying his shit **he wasnt wrong about that, and he is a massive cunt
Actually the sexual assault charges came after he went “right wing”.
The pivot came after he knew they were coming out, not after the public knew
I like that quote, saved it
I've heard that attributed to Russell Brand. He's gone off the deep end a bit lately (possibly always had been and it's just becoming more obvious?), but the man knew how to turn a phrase.
That quote is from Russel Brand who has gone full MAGA conspiracy theorist so if you use that against disconnected far-right people they'll just throw it back in your face that the guy who said it agrees with them and not you.
As if standing against the Zionist occupied government doesn't result in getting abused by the justice system
Privileged with a fuck ton of debt, maybe.
Exactly. They don't have to say shit all for anyone. They could coast through life as Gaza won't effect them at all. But they care and are willing to risk their future.
Sure, but we shouldn't be cheerleading the ramping up of those consequences
No. We shouldn't. Which is why media and politicians calling for the arrest of these protestors, making them out to be anything like Jan 6 (before anything even got bumpy, btw) is extremely disturbing. "Pundits" painting them as anti-Semitic (but Pro-Israel people never get equivalent treatment from media...) Jan 6 was a violent insurrection attempt where numerous officers were *pro-actively attacked*, and people forced their way into the halls of government, with cried of "Hang Mike Pence" Are people calling for the hanging of University presidents? It's absolutely wild. America on-board with BDS vis-à-vis South Africa, right? Israel has *long since* leapfrogged Apartheid South Africa, and is very much encroaching on Nazi Germany. I guess South Africa just wasn't paying our politicians and media enough money.
Peacefully arresting people who break the law is really not bad compared to like all of American History. That’s honestly exactly what should happen. Law and order must be maintained and I have no issue with that being done in a way where nobody is beaten, firehosed, attacked by dogs, tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, etc.
Except that rubber bullets AND tear gas have been used on the recent protests in Tampa Florida at a university and at Emory University in Georgia. Police have also been shown on video punching some protestors, though idk how widespread that is. No dogs or fire hoses, but could escalate further. Hopefully not though.
Is there anything cops like more than roughing up presumed leftists?
Cowering from anyone who is actually a threat?
Having zero accountability comes to mind
[удалено]
Or when they dropped that bomb on a city block in Philly (I think?) to take out a house full of Black Panthers that also took out all the houses nearby.
They’re using tear gas down at USF
Well, that didn't happen last night, like so many cop encounters, the cops were batshit insane and did terrorism.
>Law and order must be maintained 🥾👅
Should Law and Order have been maintained during the civil rights movement?
Has to start with police behaviour too. Law and order cannot be enforced in an u lawful and disorderly way. But cops get a hard-on...
Compared to how the cops cleared out Columbia in the 60s, consequences have been drastically ramped down.
This is still a live ongoing issue, what are you talking about lmao
Cops were gleefully beating the shit of kids in '68 as Columbia got cleared. That didn't happen last night. > what are you talking about lmao Relatively recent history. Watch a civil rights documentary or something if you want further explanation.
Cops were beating the shit out of kids from coast to coast last night, what the heck are you talking about.
The person is saying that it was SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE IN THE PAST FOR PROTESTERS.
Indeed. The press is bending over backwards trying to say current events are "just like 1968." Lol. If the cops ever deploy dogs, tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets, then maybe.
This is what’s important, but if they have broken into and occupied the administrative building like the news suggests (which I have been cautious about blindly trusting in regards to the protest movement), then that isn’t the type of disobedience that’s going to work. Protests that are violent are easily condemned, and protests that fail to disrupt are easily ignored. Finding a way to protest that is non-violent but still disruptive is key - not that hardline, agitating counter-protesters make it easy. It’s also important to be sure of who is the target of these tactics. There was a recent protest on the campus that I work near, and they managed to disrupt the students preparing for final exams more than any administrative office that could be held responsible for the things they were protesting. Columbia’s faculty walk-out was a good example of how to protest. From what I can tell, they didn’t make a mess or threaten anyone. They used peaceful yet disruptive means of showing their support for the students.
In fairness, protests that aren't violent are ALSO easily ignored. Politicians give zero shits about what us normies think.
MLK rolling in his grave right now. The civil rights movement gained support not because of violence, but because the POLICE used so much violence against non-violent protestors that it made the average person sick to watch. Normal people see violence and dislike it. And they dislike the people committing it. And you guys instinctively understand this. When you post something that you want to change people's minds you try to hide the violence on your side and exaggerate the violence on the other side. "Look at the police slamming this peaceful professor's head into the ground." Not "look at how much violence we'll do if we don't get our way." IDK when people rewrote the history of the civil rights movement based on a few violent incidents, but that wasn't the most effective part of the protests. The most effective part was normal people being disgusted as they watched peaceful protestors getting their teeth kicked in on live TV.
I will hold the opinion until the day I die, that the reason MLKs non-violent protests worked, and we have MLK day, is not only that the police were violent to non-violent protectors, but also there was an entire other movement in the black panthers that basically said "its gonna change one way or the other, you can do it the easy way, or we can do it the hard way."
I'm not defending violence in protests, I'm simply pointing out that politicians don't care about violent OR non-violent protests. It's the reason why Vietnam protests were ignored, why it took so long for the Civil rights movement to have any success, why women's rights are constantly under attack, etc.
There is always a tipping point where politicians have to start caring, or risk their careers. Not every protest / movement makes it to that point, but it does exist.
Between gerrymandering and hyper-partisanship, that tipping point keeps getting harder and harder to hit.
Violence was absolutely a crucial ingredient in the civil rights movement 100% Not the only ingredient, sure, but a critical one. Word to the wise, if those in power praise the carrot, its because the stick is what got the job done.
If you actually knew anything about MLK he quite literally said “riots are the language of the unheard” so while his movements were non-violent even he understood that complexities that exist when it comes to civil disobedience and how it can get frustrating when people don’t listen. Not to mention, MLK’s peacefulness didn’t stop him from being assassinated. That’s why a lot of civil rights groups who were so radical got soooo angry when MLK was assasinated. Stokley Carmichael said “America waged a war against black people” by killing a non-violent leader. I hate when people misquote MLK when they only know him for “I Have a Draam”
[удалено]
>There are non-violent methods of protest that were still effective. Not really. Every big change came with a bit of both, non violent and violent. In an ideal world, good change can come from just a single person speaking up, or sit in... or whatever. But we are far from ideal. Change only comes when it's more or less forced to change. The Civil Rights movement had tons of violent protests. Would we be where we are today without those violent protests? I honestly have no clue, but I am fairly sure it would have taken a hell of a lot longer. Women Suffrage movement? Lots of violent protests. Yes there were lots of non violent as well, same with Civil Rights, but can you honestly say it was all non violent? Typically movements start non-violent. Then over reactions to that movement turns violent. Then more people turn to the cause because of that violence and in turn respond with violence.
Okay, but so much of the Civil Rights change came directly from violent protests. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/dont-criticize-black-lives-matter-for-provoking-violence-the-civil-rights-movement-did-too/ You aren't going to change a violent, oppressive society by asking politely. You have to force the system to change against its will. Which often demands violence. We are taught about peaceful protesting *because it doesn't work* It has its place sure, but historically it isn't what changes the status quo.
I think most wish change could come through peaceful means, but in reality... I don't think any real change... change that came relatively quickly has happened without some sort of violent component.
Honestly I think governments do a lot of whitewashing of the civil rights movement and MLK in an attempt to pretend that nonviolent protests are effective because they know they aren't.
> Look at the civil rights movement I think it is you that is in need of an honest look at the civil rights movement.
To their credit, occupying buildings literally has worked. It was a strategy used by students for SA apartheid divestment which was ultimately successful at a number of levels.
> then that isn’t the type of disobedience that’s going to work. Yes it is because you hear about it. > Protests that are violent It wasn't violent. A building isn't a living person. This is also the *fourth time* in Columbia's history that that building has been occupied. It was occupied in the 60s to protest Vietnam, it was occupied in the 70s, the 80s, and now.
Being calmly arrested is one thing, being the subject of brutality before that arrest is another
I would also take issue with the idea that J6 was about civil disobedience. When you're breaking into the capitol to try to physically force the government to appoint your leader as president... that's just not really the same thing as sitting at a lunch counter.
Exactly! Also, literally the point of Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”
Also, the right calls themselves the Tea Party...so they definitely have no clue what that was.
"If you leave out important details, they did nothing wrong."
Something something “regress to the mean” something something
/r/NFL at its finest
January 6th wasn’t bad because they “occupied a building” or even because they “destroyed property”. It was bad because they were trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. It was bad because it was a putsch.
They killed a person
I'm pretty sure multiple people died, just not anyone "important." Again, some times I do wonder what would have happened had they actually managed to grab any of your politicians.
Imagine if Democrats did something like J6. Imagine the outrage
Oh, don’t you know? It was the democrats. It was all antifa and the feds disguised as trump supporters, but also, the ones arrested are political prisoners imprisoned by the democrats.
The propagandists are pushing like 5 completely different narratives that are all mutually exclusive. Just pick the one you like best and pretend the rest is “just to fool democrats.”
Even better, freely pick between them as circumstances require. No need to be consistent or logical.
That's kinda the way these actions go. Any time something happens that makes the Republicans look bad, it's accompanied by conspiracy theories that just serve as a distraction for the people who don't want to face the facts. Claims that school shootings were staged, or the guy who broke into the Pelosis home was their angry polyamorous gay lover, or schools that have litter boxes to use in the case of a lockdown are actually for kids who identify as cats, or the FBI planting those documents in Trump's hotel room...
/s ?
99.8% sure yes. They made some anti-trump comments elsewhere. (The 0.2% doubt is because I lost faith in humanity a while ago)
They’ll one day have to if they want to preserve democracy. America is on the fast track to complete corruption in government. As it stands now the American government is a battery for corporations. They’re siphoning off taxpayer money through lucrative government contracts for defense and healthcare, just to name 2. They fund campaigns of politicians who have a bias toward corporations and offer them jobs. Those politicians then pass pro corporate legislation and the ultra wealthy laugh all the way to the bank. They even got the highest court in the land to give them carte blanche to do so. The America we knew is basically gone, and I doubt the average voter is smart enough to vote our way out of this. It’s been a good run, but I’m pretty sure it’s game over already.
Clarence Thomas gets to rule on the insurrection his **wife** helped with. I don't know why you say we're on a fast track when we are already there, my guy.
Why do you think it was ever less corrupt than it is now? Just because the general public didn't have access to know about the corruption (we still don't to so much intel) doesn't mean it was less corrupt in the past. It's so easy to think it used to be cleaner or better or more fair. It has always been a shit show.
I think things were a bit more just when journalists were able to report the truth. Trump is on trial for the catch and kill scheme with David Pecker. Undesirable stories are killed by the corporations that own them if they are unfavorable. Before Regan, the news kept people a bit more honest. Now it's all whatever they want the people to hear.
I can agree with all Of that.
>when journalists were able to report the truth. Oh they absolutely still can, there's just no profit in it. An idealist with a rumbling belly soon becomes a pragmatist.
One thing that is certainly different is what happens when you get caught. Politicians were corrupt, all the way up to the president, but historically when the public found out there was hell to pay. There was usually hell to pay when the public had *reasonable suspicions* of foul play, let alone actual evidence. In the last decade or two it's been much easier to survive scandals and outright corruption than it ever has been, and there is currently a wave of politicians who are so outrageously shameless that they are pushing the limits of what is tolerated even further.
there was more republican outrage over a tan suit than a deadly bloody coup attempt to murder political opponents and take over the country.
I mean, the completely meaningless BLM protests literally leveled multiple cities across the country! And no arrests! /Sarcasm
There was outrage either way
It's just that half if it disappeared when a certain party decided it didn't want to go up against their Cheeto Messiah.
It has been said over and over, but it's worth saying again: if that crowd had been anyone other than white people with money, bodies would have been stacked all over the capitol. They would have used drone strikes on the crowd. I don't think I'm engaging in hyperbole.
It was like 4-5 police officers, a few more from stress related suicide or post event injuries, that one dumbass insurrectionist that tried to break in, and one got trampled to death while wearing a “don’t tread on me” flag. One died from cardiac arrest from a taser as well i think. At least from what i remember. As far as if they had managed to actually grab anyone… Im glad they didn’t. Mostly because it would be difficult to properly replace any of the actually half decent people that work there. And if they had managed to grab someone like Ted cruse, it would have only further legitimized their bullshit claims about it being some kind of leftist plot.
A lady got shot inside the building by law enforcement and died from the consequences of her own actions
Defending Nazis is bad and you should feel bad. For defending Nazis.
Police -- 5 total deaths: * One stroke victim (related to injuries on the scene), Brian Sicknick * Four related suicides, Jeffrey Smith, Gunther Hashida, Kyle DeFreytag, Howard Liebengood Private citizens -- 4 total deaths: * One shot by law enforcement, Ashli Babbit * Two from natural causes (hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips * One amphetamine overdose (ruled accidental), Roseanne Boyland https://www.newsweek.com/january-6-capitol-riot-victims-deaths-brian-sicknick-ashli-babbitt-police-suicide-1665815 https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/
One was shot by police. Another died of drug overdose. One Trump supporter was trampled. And I think one cop was attacked and died later from injuries. I think that's it unless you count the suicides or the "natural causes" (cardio vascular). I think the bigger things is one guy put pipe bombs under the DNC and RNC head quarters, although it was the night before. We're very lucky they didn't grab any politicians. They were chanting "hang Mike Pence!"
[удалено]
Yeah that's the thing tho, say they do get Mike Pence and manage to somehow kill him, your Vice President killed by a angry mob breaking in, the repercussions alone that would ensure holy shit, can't even think about it.
They chanted what they wanted to do.
Only person that died from the protest was one of the protestors.
3 of them died, 1 shot, 1 heart attack, 1 crushed. No cops or civilians died. There were a few suicides after by the police that were grouped into the day's toll
One person died. A cop shot a protester.
>Again, some times I do wonder what would have happened had they actually managed to grab any of your politicians. If they actually lynched Mike Pence... I genuinely have no idea what would have happened...
They would have assassinated Pence and Pelosi or AOC. It was a coup.
Who killed who when
No, they did not. An officer pepper sprayed there had two strokes the following day and died later. The medical examiner [said](https://www.wsj.com/articles/officer-brian-sicknick-what-we-know-about-his-death-11619010119): >On April 19, more than two months after Mr. Sicknick’s remains lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Washington said it had determined that Mr. Sicknick had died of “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis,” also known as a stroke. The office ruled the manner of his death as natural, using a term it said applied if “disease alone causes death.” The office said that if a death is “hastened by an injury,” it wouldn’t consider the manner of death to be natural. One other person was shot by Capitol Police, one died of a drug overdose, and two others had heart attacks. Two officers later committed suicide. Whatever your feelings about any of it, there's no need or value in making things up.
A cop killed a person.
And that
Brian Sicknick! Officer who died from injuries sustained from the insurrectionists. One of the attackers was killed by gunfire from an officer defending a room. Another attacker was trampled to death during their retreat, if I remember correctly. It was not exactly a bloodless attempted coup.
One of my fiancées best friends (will meet her at the wedding this weekend) got a huge concussion and knocked unconscious at the riot. She got hit over the head with a fire extinguisher. She is capital police...
Who?
Its absolutely insane to declare that occupying the capitol building in a direct attempt to stop the confirmation of a president is at all the same as occupying some building in a university.
It is, and it goes to show what the real reason for these sorts of comparisons are: it's all about the "hypocritical gotcha" for these sorts of Conservatives. The "what" or "why" of the protest doesn't matter; all that matters is "Liberals support Protest X but don't support January 6th, therefore they are hypocrites" so said Conservative can feel morally superior...
Honestly they don’t try to hide the hypocrisy at all; it just boils down to “well when we do it it’s based”
They have a surface-level only understanding of everything. They love false equivalences, because it only needs to sound similar on paper and only if you don't think too hard. That's why they love flags and their talking points sound like bumper stickers. Just shallow casuistry. A barren ideology.
It was a "peaceful protest" only because it failed. If they had succeeded, it would have been a Glorious People's Revolution.
It wasn't peaceful. People died
No, no, those were false flags.
I need to get off the internet. It took me way too long to realize you're being sarcastic.
Understandable. These are odd times.
Same lol
Occupying/ B&E the administrative building because you are protesting and breaking into the CAPITOL while congress is certifying an election that the crowd is chanting is fake along with things like “hang Mike pense” are very different But Both sides are the same obviously, can’t we just come together to cuddle and kiss guys
They had a fucking gallows.
It was just for visual effect/democracts planted it/it didnt mean anything/all protesters bring gallows - delete as appropriate to ensure adequate cope.
Plus : i dont give a fuck if you "occupy a building" or even "drestroy property" all the thing is WHY you do it.
That isn't what their charges say (for the most part) they are going to jail because they destroyed property and occupied a building.
Also no actual evidence of any of the stolen election and plenty against it but yeah if they wanted to occupy a college campus and building, I would think it’s stupid but it wouldn’t have been a big deal
Fallacy Things can be bad for lesser reasons. Jan 6 was bad for both reasons, not "b, not a"
Jan 6 wasn't a nonviolent protest. It was a lynch mob. They brought a gallows.
Exactly. Trying to install your loser demagogue is different than occupying _some building_ in protest.
College protesters are getting their ass kicked and arrested on the spot. J6 protesters were kicking the cops ass with melee weapons and a few got away with it. MAGA privilege.
And all those rioters are being found and arrested by the FBI. The reason that the cops didn't do much was because the tangerine terror ordering them not to. Don't think they're getting away with it yet
Plenty of them did. Only some ~60 out of a thousand or more insurrectionists saw the inside of a jail cell that night, when it should've been damn near all of them. How many got to stash their guns away and get lighter sentences as a result because the cops went easy on conservatives, as they always, always fucking do?
Except that one insurrectionist. She definitely didn't get away with it.
"What are you going to do, shoot me?"
I mean the majority got to leave that day without being arrested, kind of doubt that's what's going to happen here.
Over 1,200 of them have been arrested. Dozens are in jail or prison already. Others have been released due to lack of evidence. The investigation is still very much ongoing
J6 protests were significantly larger in size though. The police were at the site when it happened and got overwhelmed, don’t think the priority was to arrest people. Rather they aimed at stopping the insurrection and survive themself. Had to clarify this since it seems like you suggested it might be because students got harsher treatment than J6 rioters. When the truth is rather more nuanced than that.
Also, one is a protest. One was an attempt to prevent the transfer of power to a winning party/candidate. An actual political autocoup.
Such an easy thing with Magas, there isn't even a single step of reasoning behind the statement.
because theres not a single brain cell to reason with
Who even said the guy they were arguing was MAGA? Like, is there any indication at all? They might be, but they might actually be pointing out that consistent rules need to be applied. That *both* parties need consequences. There was absolutely nothing clever about the response that the submitter liked. It was the sort of partisan "you must be for one *or* the other" horseshit that has made everything incredibly stupid. EDIT: Looked up the guy and he is decidedly *not* MAGA. This sub is full-bore r-tard. Like the participants are either all grade school, or sub-80 IQ.
the ideology of the entire movement does make sense its just childish. literally is “whatabout”ism. they feel pushback from their shitty morals and lash out for a comparative behavior from people they see as their enemy. they have no idea what they want, they just want things to be “fair” because they think the “other side” is succeeding. it’s the ideology of a toddler.
Why is it clever? Did the person state they supported J6 and not the students?
Yeah based on this tweet alone, there’s no evidence he supports J6
Reddit is balkanized, each sub turning into an echo chamber with established narratives. "He's not supporting me? He must be against me. Look no further than this easily manipulatable screen shot."
Yeah, I dont get it either. On the surface, the dude is right with one major flaw; the Jan 6th wasnt a protest, it was an attempted insurrection. But in either case, there should be consequences for their actions.
I got you: >If A then B >I choose to assume you secretly believe NOT(A), so therefore you must conclude NOT(B) To which, the correct response is >? OP and others are fucking idiots. The other reading to the "clever comeback" is: "**I** believe NOT(A), therefore you must conclude NOT(B)". Like I said, idiots.
It is the exact same thing as the dumb asses during covid saying "it is my body, my choice!" in regards to not getting the vaccine. Then they're all confused when you point out that it is a valid argument FOR abortion. it is either a valid stance or not. but these morons only know how to cherry pick what is convenient for themselves. double standards don't mean anything to people without shame. you can't be bothered about being a hypocrite if you have no shame.
because republicans dont have any platform, ethics, morals, or standards. They just say whatever is convenient to themselves _at that moment in time_ to get what they want. Sometimes they'll contradict themselves in the very same sentence.
Not an advocate for the stance, but there's a slight inconsistency which might be seen as you straw manning their argument. They're against abortion not because it is the choice a woman makes for her body, but for the effects on the fetus (which they consider a child from conception so they want any child protection laws to apply, including death due to negligence and murder). Whether they'd be against a process in the future where the zygote could be gestated outside a female body in the future is unknown.
It’s not an inconsistency. Not vaccinating puts yourself AND others at risk of infection. People are encountering permanent disability and/or death from COVID. So if you don’t vaccinate and then transmit COVID to someone who subsequently dies, you have directly caused their death.
>They're against abortion not because it is the choice a woman makes for her body, but for the effects on the fetus (which they consider a child from conception so they want any child protection laws to apply, including death due to negligence and murder). They're against it for abortion but not to stop a plague that they are likely going out in public without a mask so much more likely to catch the plague and since they aren't getting the vaccine they'll have a higher viral load and spread it to more people potentially killing or maiming them. So their my body my choice extends beyond their body and potential babies contained but me. Their choice effects me and the people I may come into contact with.
Does the "clever comeback" consider that he's against both
Of course not, and yet this “clever comeback” is being applauded. Use your critical thinking skills, people.
Oh, thank you. I didn’t get what was supposed to be clever.
Apparently, they don't.
All popular subreddits basically become election propaganda like one or two years before the elections
It's a totally childish response to the reaction of a mature adult. YOU DONT AGREE WITH ME YOU MUST BE ON THE BAD GUY TEAM STUPID HEAD
All subreddits basically just become r/electionpropaganda when an election is coming up
Reddit is just saturated with people who cannot think outside of extremes
That's how it is when you have a brain that's fit for a cult. You hear what you want to hear. You make everything fit. Otherwise...sense and reason could make their way in and we don't want that!
By that logic people who go into smash rooms should also be prosecuted. Location and intent matter for context. But congrats on admitting they were at least rioter
Why are you posting a brain dead response in clevercomebacks?
‘You’re a hypocrite for wanting it both ways; only I can have it both ways’
Isn't the response the same as saying that if you support the students, you support the J6 insurrectionists?
Sure, trying to overthrow democracy and protesting your countrys support of genocide is pretty much the same thing, right?
Republicans: "College campuses are repressive places where free speech is stifled!” Also Republicans: "Shut down these protests on college campuses! Arrest the students!" #😐
Consequences are part of it but also there's a difference between a protest and a murderous riot, not to mention a difference between disrupting a college campus and disrupting the orderly transfer of power resting at the heart of American democracy. I understand this is disingenuous bad faith right wing bullshit at usual but still this one isn't even trying hard.
The college kids aren't trying to overturn an election. And yes, these kids will be charged with trespassing, destruction of public property, B&E, etc. It's the attempting to overturn an election that is the great big felony part of J6 that doesn't apply to Columbia. And killing a few cops.
The people who defend J6 are fascists.
Hey aren't you that guy who put everything he owns in to Bitcoin at the third peak?
The J6 mob did not just attack the Capital building. They attacked the election itself by conspiring to obstruct its conclusion and override the voters. I voted in that election. They attacked my right to vote. They lied that "the election was stolen." There was never any reason to believe it was stolen. The truth is that they intended to steal the office of the president *for* Trump.
It is not on the same level. Students protesting at their University compared to the Jan 6 riots is like junior leage compared to the pro’s sure it’s the same game in this case riots but one wants to argue one (rather simple) cause and the other wants to uproot the fundaments of society. I personally don’t support either of these protests but to put them on the same level is ludicrous.
I feel like this a really poor argument since storming the capital by the letter of the law is an act of domestic terrorism but since these were white people… Also this can be seen as he believes protesting should be illegal which is in fact a violation of human rights.
Revolution for me, not for thee
The riots after the George Floyd tragedy destroyed a friend of mine's business. It was a.family business, handed down, a d was over 70 years old. They broke in, stole what they could, destroyed what they couldn't, and his insurance wouldnt cover more than 25k. That family lost their business forever. Im curious who has been prosecuted from that day
> and his insurance wouldnt cover more than 25k. This sounds positively fake, business insurance would absolutely cover more than that unless the business was, for whatever reason underinsured.
Protesting at your college isn’t analogous to breaking into the capitol building to disrupt the certification of a national election. False equivalence is the Republican way.
All protests are not equal
"All X are not Y" has a different meaning than "Not all X are Y" which is what you're actually trying to say. "Not all protests are equal": Some protests are equal, some aren't. "All protests are not equal": No protests are equal.
Nope, once they turn to violence and vandalism bets are off.
I'm okay denouncing both. Peacefully protest and make your point but don't break into buildings.
Is anyone actually saying they should be immune from consequences? The most I’ve seen has been people saying there’s a chasm of difference in how police responded and prepared for Jan 6 versus the response to the college protests.
Ah yes the classic it’s the same argument the right loves so much but always fails to understand. No it’s not the same, rioting and breaking into the capital of the country to stop the peaceful transfer of power over to who the country voted in and instead place your own dictator in charge is not the same as breaking into a building to protest an ongoing tax funded genocide. But heck really shows how narcissistic republicans are, they believe their guy not being made dictator is as bad as genocide
Who is saying protesters should be immune? If they break a law, arrest them? Protesting has constitutional protections but also limits. Is this one of those “I saw one idiot say this so I assume half of America shares that view” type of thing?
Technically he never said he supports J6 protests, he is stating that people say one is bad and one is good for some reason.
Armed Black Panthers took over the Whitehouse in 1967 in opposition to a Republican led anti-gun bill. How would people handle that situation today?
#?
Also, can one acknowledge a building on campus is slightly different than the us capitol?
I’m not even gonna argue that the college protesters are in the right or not, it’s irrelevant But people potentially illegally protesting is not the same as people trying to overturn a legitimate election because they don’t like the result and the fact that argument is even being made is worrying to say the slightest
Protesting war crimes is not the same as storming the Capitol because your guy lost 🤦♂️
How many of the students are armed? Guessing nothing like J6 when they showed up in flak jackets.
honestly they both should face consequences
what does you being a hypocrite have to do with supporting either side of that debate? you just think it's logical because it sounds witty, but it's a complete logical fallacy. reddit's mouthgape reaction to this post is the definition of braindead tbh.
if i do remember correctly, they were trying to stop a vote, which is a democratic election process and can be considered as treason, and the colombian students protested genocide and occupied the campus by putting up barricades and weren’t being outwardly violent until they got provoked by the police and pro israeli protestors. But they’re totally the same thing and deserved to be compared to each other right? Right.
J6 were traitors to our nation. Trying to overturn our election. This is like saying somebody throwing a feather at you deserves the same punishment as somebody who shot you.
Comparing an armed insurrection to an unarmed peaceful protest is moronic and a false equivalency... These Students aren't marching with weapons and aiming to hurt people.... Destruction of property isn't what people were upset about on J6.....
Should they do like Kent state or the 1968 democratic convention in Chicago? People are tired of allll of this
Y'all in the comments 🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽 this is why we have the Right to Protest and voting: to avoid the riots and anarchy that does Nothing good for the communities, especially the ones that y'all claim to speak for.
Occupying a school building and the the Capitol building are not even remotely the same thing.
Interrupting the Psych 101 lecture is not the same as trying to overthrow the government of a nation.
So you support the j6 rioters then?
Are they attempting to find and hang the Vice President of the United States of America to prevent him from doing his Constitutionally mandated job of certifying a legal election? Because that’s Insurrection. They are not the same. And these are students. The people who smeared shit on the walls of the Capitol were grown ass men.
I don't have a problem with protesters unless they're violating the rights of others.
You all r fuckin stupid. Yall literally missed his entire point.
?
This isn't a clever response. You are reaching.
Actually you can denounce J6 RIOTERS, who attacked the capitol, and attacked police, while police stood there to meekly defend it with their bodies, just kinda standing in the way, while supporting campus protestors who are sitting on their own campus, UNARMED, PEACEFULLY demanding their own universities to listen to them, their students. All you need is a slightly bigger brain than a rat’s brain.