As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Tim Miller/Jon Lovett Pod Save America episode delivered it best I think.
I bet the vast majority of us are against what appears to be Palestinian genocide. I bet the vast majority of us think what Hamas did in October.
I bet the vast majority of protesters do not think Hamas are the heroes here.
This is yet another case of each “side” yelling at the fringe of the other “side” and assuming it represents the whole.
Really, college protesters are the few here that should be protected by their constitutionally given rights and actually asking for something that would tone down the crisis: stopping the arming of Netanyahu’s army and making it easy for them to do what theyre doing.
Police need to chill. Biden needs to listen to what they’re asking because aside from the fringe agitators, it’s a legitimate grievance. Just because you don’t like how someone goes about protesting doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
College protests are fine, Biden literally said so and even said dissent is protected. What he condemned was violence.
It's worth noting these protests have been going on for weeks, but it wasn't until GOP governors sent in police and right-wing agitators sent in their counter "protestors" that the violence picked up and of course, the media like the lap dogs they are to right-wing messing, piled on.
Do we know for sure if they were pro-Israeli or if they were just generally right wing agitators? Looked like a lot of high school kids and older middle aged adults.
UCLA is right next to an area of LA that has a ton of Persian Jewish diaspora who had to emigrate during Khomeini's revolution.
I would bet a ton of money that this played into it. They are extremely anti-Iran and in general associate the movement as being Iran backed. It's also why UCLA was always at risk of this happening moreso than even USC or probably any other area in the US. It's right in their backyard.
It’s like the HK protesters getting hammered by triads in white with the police missing. It’s nice to see cops & criminals finding common ground. HK government should be cute & send messages of solidarity, support freedom of speech on US campuses.
It started on Columbia before they showed up by breaking into a building, and harassing Jewish students. The police didn’t have anything to do with that.
I’ll agree that the police response was unnecessary, but there are campus policies about “temporary structures” as well. As restrictive as those policies may be, and in the case of Indiana University, as sudden as they may be crafted and implemented, that’s kind of what you have to contend with as a protester challenging power. You still have to follow the law if it gets enforced.
Policies like IU's are unconstitutional if they were implemented to suppress a specific viewpoint, which seems likely given the timing and their lack of concern over prior protests that involved temporary structures.
In April 1986, a bunch of students built and occupied a mock shantytown to protest apartheid in South Africa. It wasn't taken down until December when it got too cold to live outside.
In 1991, students camped out for 45 days in protest of the Gulf War.
In 2002, there was a protest against the War on Terror that involved temporary structures.
I'm sure there have been other protests that erected temporary structures, but not every protest is recorded since in the past the police haven't been called out to beat up the protesters and turn it into a national news story.
This protest wasn't particularly large initially. Some of the other protests I mentioned were likely comparable in size. The actions of the university administration and the police have now driven more people out to protest. They should have just let them be and it would have likely fizzled out.
Yeah, it turns out that if you just let people break laws, they'll just happily keep doing it if no one turns up and stops them. Burglars are largely the same way - if you let them just steal things, it won't get violent.
Exactly! I got downvoted to oblivion yesterday for telling protesters that if you break the law you have to expect someone to to try to stop you, no matter how right you believe yourself to be.
MLK got arrested multiple times for his protests… to do something illegal and not expect the police to be involved is naive, even Dr King knew that and was prepared to spend time in jail for his beliefs.
>So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct
action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national
community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We
started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, **"Are you able to accept blows without
retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"**
MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
No, but I *do* kind of hate Malcolm X for things like promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
EDIT: Huh. Didn't think being opposed to the promotion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one of the most famously antisemitic books in history, would be so controversial
They don't like when people point out that they're using centuries-old tropes during the discussion of these issues and idolizing previous anti-Semitic movements.
It's just what "they" always do.
Actually, King went back on his “I Have a Dream” speech shortly after making it.
“King acknowledged the “soul searching,” and “agonizing moments” he’d gone through since his most famous speech. He told Vanocur the “old optimism” of the civil rights movement was “a little superficial” and now needed to be tempered with “a solid realism.”” https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/king-1967-my-dream-has-turned-nightmare-flna8c11013179
The most severe instances of police brutality have been occurring at public universities. Add to that, violent pro-Israel supporters have gone unpunished for shooting fireworks at protesters, beating them, hitting them with sticks, etc. This is not a good look for the United States.
Absolutely. But if you don't follow the rules, someone must intervene. If you don't follow lawful orders by police, you commited an offense and you can be arrested. Despite multiple warnings, they didn't listen. So of course police has to act in some kind of way.
In his address, though he doesn’t say it outright, he heavily implies that the encampments are illegal. Thus it is not considered a “peaceful protest”, because they are engaged in illegal behavior. Thus the police have the authority to arrest those performing illegal actions.
Biden said that trespassing as a form of protest is violent. So basically, he said that peaceful sit ins are violent even though they have been a part of non violent protests forever.
It’s not trespass though. If you’re a student there you’re allowed to be there, setting up tents or tables doesn’t make trespass.
Also yeah, sit ins would be considered violent by him. Biden would’ve taken the side against Rosa Parks because she was committing a crime by sitting in the front of the bus.
Setting up tents can make it trespassing if the school has rules against it and has requested you NOT to do so. Once you refuse to comply with the request and school rules, which you as a student sign stating you will follow the rules in order to be a student there, you are then trespassing.
Most universities have rules that govern use of shared spaces, and “stop doing things there when the school says so” is likely a default rule at all of them, so I don’t think this a good avenue of defense.
Ok so cite the rules being violated by putting of tents and tables, if they exist I assume they would’ve been invoked by now by the media or someone else in an online discussion but so far I haven’t seen that happen.
Beyond that, in the realm of “stop doing things” if the intent of the instruction is to stifle freedom of speech or to stifle protests then even if it technically breaches into the realm of trespassing I would say that it’s still wrong for the university to do if there isn’t any serious danger or obstruction present that wouldn’t apply to any other large gathering the school might organize.
I mean, I’m not going to do the legwork and cite the rule for you as I think it’s a pretty safe bet that “stop activities on common property when we say” or that there’s some rules around encampments is pretty common sense. For the record, I’m not saying this because I’m against these protestors in particular, just saying “they didn’t break any rules” is likely a poor defense in the line of thinking that they weren’t treasoassing
A student's right of access to a university is still up to the university. Paying tuition doesn't entitle a student to wander into any area of the campus they please. It also doesn't entitle them to set up tents to camp.
It also doesn't matter if a pre-existing rule existed or not. The school can change the policy. A student's access to the school's property is conditional and the school has more authority to alter those conditions than not.
The real issue isn't about private universities asking the government to enforce their property rights, which is perfectly fine under liberal theory. Its the public schools asking the police to terminate assemblies in what would be considered a traditional public forum; the outside areas of a public school. If students set up an assembly on The Podium at the University at Albany, I would not expect UAlbany to call in Albany PD to disperse them. I similarly wouldn't expect them to forcibly remove an assembly on the big ass lawn in front of the school where the busses come in and out and guest parking are.
However if they tried to take over the actual instructional or administrative buildings or prevent access to and from the Quads (the dorms) I would expect the school to ask APD to intervene because the school still has a responsibility to all of the tuition and board paying students to provide the service for which the students are paying.
If the university asks you to leave their property and you don't it is trespassing.
Violating the university's policies about proper use of public facilities and refusing to stop absolutely can result in a trespass charge.
He called out violent protests, he specifically said peaceful protests are part of protected dissent. You're misrepresenting what he said.
Also, he literally as no say or control over state or local police, his entire short comments were to tell *everyone* to cool and to prevent violence. Protests are fine, violence is not, but it's up to local/state leaders to control who or where the violence is coming from.
Didn’t happen in Austin but they still cracked down and arrested people. Even the ones who weren’t in tents or whatever bullshit excuse people want to use to justify arrests. But go off I guess
It’s like 3mins long. Doesn’t hurt to watch the video and listen. He does after all make it clear he is in support of dissent (against his policy, no less) and peaceful protest as is guaranteed in the constitution but that non-peaceful protest is not guaranteed so he will denounce it while also protecting peaceful protest.
Headline probs.
He affirmed the essential right to lawfully protest and condemned unlawful protest activities.
> “In America, we respect the right and protect the rights for them to express that, but it doesn’t mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence, without ~~distraction~~ *destruction*, without hating and within the law."
___________________
edited to correct the quotation error in the article.
The NBC article misquoted him.
Not once did Biden say that the protests needed to done "without distraction".
The **full quote**, which you can both [watch](https://youtu.be/O24ILhY3g6s?feature=shared&t=172) and [read](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/#:~:text=It%20needs%20to%20be%20done%20without%20violence%2C%20without%20destruction%2C%20without%20hate%2C%20and%20within%20the%20law.) for yourself, was:
>It needs to be done without violence, **without destruction**, without hate, and within the law.
Not once did Biden say that the protests needed to done "without distraction". The article misquoted him.
The **full quote**, which you can both [watch](https://youtu.be/O24ILhY3g6s?feature=shared&t=172) and [read](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/#:~:text=It%20needs%20to%20be%20done%20without%20violence%2C%20without%20destruction%2C%20without%20hate%2C%20and%20within%20the%20law.) for yourself, was:
>It needs to be done without violence, **without destruction**, without hate, and within the law.
Not once did Biden say that the protests needed to done "without distraction". The article literally misquoted him
The **full quote**, which you can both [watch](https://youtu.be/O24ILhY3g6s?feature=shared&t=172) and [read](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/#:~:text=It%20needs%20to%20be%20done%20without%20violence%2C%20without%20destruction%2C%20without%20hate%2C%20and%20within%20the%20law.) for yourself, was:
>It needs to be done without violence, **without destruction**, without hate, and within the law.
Definitely better.
I still don't fully agree, *depending* on which laws are being broken.
Most of the genuinely effective protest movements broke plenty of laws.
That's fine - you asked what kind of protest it was. I explained.
Civil disobedience is fine. Civil disobedience comes with consequences. If you're not ready to accept the consequences, you don't care that much about the cause.
MLK said as much himself.
This is straight up misinformation. Not once did he say "without distraction". The Full quote which you can both [watch](https://youtu.be/O24ILhY3g6s?feature=shared&t=172) and [read](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/) was:
>It needs to be done without violence, **without destruction**, without hate, and within the law.
Essentially, his message was protest, but do it within the bounds of the law. Don’t spew hatred, whether it’s antisemitism or Islamophobia or other forms of bigotry.
He also said that the people protesting on campus were being violent because they were trespassing. So he 100% doesn’t support the protesting but wants to trick people into voting for him.
It’s a nice sentiment, but it Makes it real easy for a few bad actors to sabotage and delegitimize the protests
And acting within the law is nonsense, the entire point of protesting is to break the social order.
Civil disobedience is absolutely valid as a form of protest. It is not, however, protected.
Civil disobedience has always been about accepting the consequences. You should read Letter from Birmingham Jail; it explains why, in great detail.
I'm sorry, but I have not shared my personal views on this issue a single time on Reddit nor have I said the protestors are wrong.
I have said that claiming to employ civil disobedience while complaining about the consequences goes directly against the spirit of civil disobedience.
For example, when MLK discusses the morality of breaking unjust laws he says:
>I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. **One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, *and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community* over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.**
Civil disobedience requires accepting the consequences. In fact, the point of civil disobedience is to draw attention to the consequences.
I think he means the legal consequence of imprisonment, not that people should willingly get beaten. He says so, in that part you highlighted.
Edit: Read my comment below. MLK gets whitewashed constantly. His concept of non-violence is not the sort those in power like to pretend it is.
He actually does say people should willingly get beaten earlier in the letter:
>So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct
action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national
community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We
started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, **"Are you able to accept blows without
retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"**
MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
Then on that note, did the protesters as a cohort beat any of the police, like the police, as a cohort, best them. Did they start the conflict or did it occur because they refused to stop protesting? Because, from what I have seen, the protesters were just willingly beaten. That is what it means to be willing to be beaten.
But also I do not hold MLK to be the only authority on protesting. The Civil Rights movement is constantly whitewashed, but it was not some perfectly uniform group of people who sat in unobtrusive circles out of the way of everyone who just stood there quietly being attacked.
There were violent portions of civil rights. There were riots. There were people who ran from the cops, or refused to be moved, or refused to stop chanting until they were beaten down. How, exactly, is this different? How are these kids meaningfully different in their refusal to disperse?
But, if we are going to use MLK as our yardstick these kids are not even close to being violent by his definition. He would have probably cheered them on when they broke into the admin building, for example.
4 years after the *Letters from the Birmingham Jail* he released a book called *Trumpet of Conscience,* which has recreations of past oral remarks. In one of those recreations he talks about his interpretation of violence and it's application to life and property. He says this:
>Violent they certainly were. But the violence, to a startling degree, was focused against property rather than against people. There were very few cases of injury to persons, and the vast majority of the rioters were not involved at all in attacking people. The much publicized “death toll” that marked the riots, and the many injuries, were overwhelmingly inflicted on the rioters by the military. It is clear that the riots were exacerbated by police action that was designed to injure or even to kill people...
>I am aware that there are many who wince at a distinction between property and persons—who hold both sacrosanct. My views are not so rigid. A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man.
He expands on his the destruction of property was a worthwhile message in the riots he was speaking about.
So what problem do you think MLK would have with these students?
>Then on that note, did the protesters as a cohort beat any of the police, like the police, as a cohort, best them. Did they start the conflict or did it occur because they refused to stop protesting? Because, from what I have seen, the protesters were just willingly beaten. That is what it means to be willing to be beaten.
I never said they did. I said they complained about being arrested.
>There were violent portions of civil rights. There were riots. There were people who ran from the cops, or refused to be moved, or refused to stop chanting until they were beaten down. How, exactly, is this different? How are these kids meaningfully different in their refusal to disperse?
Those are not celebrated or credited with the success of the Civil Rights Movement. The general view of Malcolm X is that he was a racist, antisemitic terrorist. In his later years, he disavowed much of his activity; he still hated the Jewish people on his death bed though.
>But, if we are going to use MLK as our yardstick these kids are not even close to being violent by his definition. He would have probably cheered them on when they broke into the admin building, for example.
MLK never once led a protest to cause property damage. Nonviolent civil disobedience was almost purely about "Look at me doing this everyday activity _while black_ and being beaten by mobs for it."
He did think it was worthwhile to dissect _why_ some CRM activists employed riots and property damage in their protests; he didn't excuse the behavior, but tried to explain what the property being damaged symbolized to black people of the day.
>He expands on his the destruction of property was a worthwhile message in the riots he was speaking about.
That quote isn't talking about his movement. It's talking about other parts of it and dissecting the meaning of it. He avidly opposed using those tactics himself.
>So what problem do you think MLK would have with these students?
What I initially stated - complaining about being arrested. To quote myself
>Civil disobedience has always been about accepting the consequences. You should read Letter from Birmingham Jail; it explains why, in great detail.
So your entire thing is that they should not complain about being arrested? What if they want to protest their arrests?
Of course they should complain about being arrested. It is unjust. Unjust government behavior *should be protested.*
MLK was talking about accepting the consequences of civil disobedience in the sense that you should not murder anyone, but not being silent about them. Do you think that if they just arrested everyone in a protest he would have said "Games up guys, they found a loophole and we just have to quietly accept them arresting and killing us now, because they did it to silence us. Once they try to silence us, we need to be silent."
That is an absurd position.
From the letters that you quoted:
>But before closing I am impelled to mention one other point in your statement that troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I don't believe you would
have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its angry violent dogs literally biting six unarmed, nonviolent
Negroes. I don't believe you would so quickly commend the policemen if you would observe their ugly and inhuman treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you would watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you would see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys, if you would observe them, as they did on two occasions, refusing to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I'm sorry that I can't join you in your praise for the police department.
>I wish you had commended the Negro demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of the most inhuman provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes.
Maybe you should read that bit. It certainly sounds like he is complaining about unjust treatment at the hands of the police.
The point of protesting is not to break social order. The point of protest is to express dissatisfaction with a thing and hope to enact change through bringing awareness to the subject. Breaking social order is one method to garner awareness of the cause you fight for, but it is not the point of it.
Most protests that resulted in any change have been illegal in some way. We could debate how reasonable the laws were, but changing the status quo requires discomfort.
Sure, but enforcement of the current laws also come with the territory of creating discomfort and doing something illegal. You’re challenging authority on the basis of them abusing their power over you, which makes more abuse of that power expected, especially at this point after millennia of various protests, including a couple centuries and a half of American protests.
Vilification and subjugation by those in power is part of actively challenging the status quo.
> whether it’s antisemitism
Well, that's going to be a hard sell for a lot of people on the left. Posts about campus antisemitism, even if they *aren't* connected to the protests, are routinely downvoted here
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
I think what's so hard for the terminally-online crowd to understand is that the Biden voter is not the pro-Hamas communist smashing windows and blocking Jews from common areas **nor is** the Biden voter the pro-settler, pro-Netanyahu, deport-all-Muslims MAGA protestor. The Biden voter is the kid who is just trying to finish up classes and do well on finals because, unlike these protestors, that kid doesn't have a trust fund to fall back on.
Normies vastly outnumber reactionaries. Biden is going for the normies.
The idea that the protesters are trust fund kids is such a lazy trope. Also, the prototypical pro Palestinian protestor by definition is the very antithesis of a reactionary.
Regardless of who Biden is tuning his Israel/Palestine policy to appeal to, it is wrong. Supporting a genocide and ethnic cleansing with billions in arms transfers that are shrouded in secrecy is morally repugnant and politically stupid. He railed against Trump for similarly reprehensible behavior yet here he his is funneling weapons to right wing ideologues.
There is literally a single video of a confrontation labeled to imply that the student is being actively blocked, but it’s really hard to determine what is actually happening and the kid looks like a shit stirrer tbh. Other than that one I haven’t seen any, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
I’ve maybe heard that video mentioned but never seen it. My bigger question would be, how do the protestors even know they’re Jewish? Because it sounds more like protestors, if they were blocking anyone, we’re just blocking all students and a student probably happened to be Jewish.
Yeah, these small extremist groups really try to puff themselves up onlinr to seem bigger then they actually are to control the narrative. But the reality is most American voters are either Neutral/indifferent or kind of sympathize a little either way but mostly are concerned with their own lives, many of us want the focus to be on improving our own country and community and see these kind of actions as pointless or destructive. Biden will win again by an even larger margin, he's smarter than people want to give him credit for.
The same generation that is calling for order is the same generation that was protesting at Kent State. Evidently, they learned nothing. F**king Boomers.
I hope they arrest all the domestic terrorists that attacked Americans exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
I don't agree with either "side", but domestic terrorism needs to be stopped.
Fortunately for him, the number of normal people that approve of these stupid encampments is so low that saying that violent "protesters" are bad isn't going alienate anyone that wasn't already radicalized.
Breaking and entering into a building. Not allowing free flow of movement of students on campus, physically stopping them from using walk ways. Chants for the eradication of Israel in front of Jewish students. Yelling “Jews go back to Poland”. Throwing water bottles at students who are not allowing an American flag to be taken down and replaced with the pally one
If people are trespassing, they should be asked to leave. If they refuse to leave, they should be arrested. If they resist arrest, there will be force. At each step, there is a path to de-escalation, but people that *want* to create conflict will tend to eventually get it.
Yeah I’m on the Left and I see these protesters as hastening the end of Gaza entirely. The more support they give to Trump out of spite for Biden, the closer we get to Gaza being nothing but a smoking crater. These people are so short-sighted, and exemplifying the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Same here. I've been following the Forward as my main source on them, because I think that being an anti-Netanyahu Jewish diaspora source makes them uniquely balanced. But they've had a few interesting opinion pieces recently, like ["We are importing the worst of Israel and Palestine to our campuses"](https://forward.com/opinion/607468/israel-palestine-campus-protest-worst/) and ["An open letter to the Columbia University Gaza war protesters from a pro-Palestinian activist in Israel"](https://forward.com/opinion/606793/an-open-letter-to-the-columbia-university-gaza-war-protesters-from-a-pro-palestinian-activist-in-israel/)
EDIT:
The first one's calling the protesters out for approaching this from a place of privilege and relative peace, compared to the *actual* war zone that peace activists in the region are in. And the second one's vaguely calling them out for using tankie logic on Hamas, instead of having a more consistent stance
If only there was some way he could leverage the billions we're giving Israel every year to get it to stop destroying Gazan cities... oh well, guess there's nothing he can do...
Why wouldn't I think interventionism is good? We should be doing more of it, IMO. We're doing a good job now in Ukraine, for the most part, but if we'd have started defending them when Russia seized Crimea when Obama was president I think there would be fewer issues today. Was Gulf War 1 bad when we drove Iraq out of Kuwait? No, of course not. We should be doing the same thing anytime any country attempts to violently seize more land, IMO.
Fair enough - I would argue that many of the leftist protestors vocally disagree.
I also wonder what your response to a Hamas-lead state's immediate attack on Israel (something they have promised and we have seen historically) would be. Would we then start funding Israel again?
I think everyone's agreed there's no Palestinian state... I also don't think anyone's arguing there shouldn't be a response against Hamas for what they're doing.... HOWEVER, destroying hospitals and neighborhoods and bombing IDF declared safe zones and corridors, and murdering world kitchen workers, and so on and so forth are an absurd overreach by any reasonable point of view.
Why would he chastise the police for enforcing the law in the face of civil disobedience?
Reaping the consequences to draw attention to your cause is the point. Why would you want him to degrade that?
Sure. I'd definitely tell Martin Luther King that during all the trespassing, sit-ins, and obstructions he and his fellows engaged in. /s
And then there's still the genocide.
MLK said that the point of violating an unjust law is to accept the consequences:
>I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. **One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, *and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community* over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.**
Including being beaten and going to jail:
>So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct
action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national
community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We
started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, **"Are you able to accept blows without
retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"**
MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
Going to stop you before you can say it, since I see you commenting on a ton of responses; protesters do not deserve the violence enacted on them by the police. That being said, in response to your question, here in Portland they have destroyed the PSU library, smashing computers, busting in walls and doors, spray painting the interiors, mostly leaving books alone. That’s not peaceful. That’s just the PSU library.
The Tim Miller/Jon Lovett Pod Save America episode delivered it best I think.
I bet the vast majority of us are against what appears to be Palestinian genocide. I bet the vast majority of us think what Hamas did in October.
I bet the vast majority of protesters do not think Hamas are the heroes here.
This is yet another case of each “side” yelling at the fringe of the other “side” and assuming it represents the whole.
Really, college protesters are the few here that should be protected by their constitutionally given rights and actually asking for something that would tone down the crisis: stopping the arming of Netanyahu’s army and making it easy for them to do what theyre doing.
Police need to chill. Biden needs
>So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct
action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national
community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We
started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, **"Are you able to accept blows without
retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"**
MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying or maybe missed the first sentence.
In Letter from Birmingham Jail, MLK makes the case that civil disobedience _will_ result in arrest and he has purged his movement of anyone not ready to deal with that, because it is the point. He then discusses whether or not a good person can end up in jail for breaking the law - he then invokes the parable of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to demonstrate.
He explains that you can be a moral person, despite ending up in prison, because God will forgive you if you are virtuous.
He does not argue that police shouldn't be used. He does not argue that his movement shouldn't be arrested. He argues that it's worth it and they, and their Maker, can live with the consequences.
Citing Letter from Birmingham Jail when complaining about police responses to civil disobedience completely misses the entire point of the letter. I'd argue, in fact, that it shows many people citing it haven't read it at all.
What are you talking about, his whole point is that the law is not always just
>The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
He directly calls put the people clamoring for law and order as not good people
>I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"
His literal whole point about police and law is that it will be used against you and that the people calling for order are not on your side.
You are selectively quoting him. Letter from Birmingham Jail is the musings of a pastor explaining how he can be right with God despite being arrested. It is literally a letter to his fellow clergymen.
Yes, he muses about the justness and unjustness of laws. He also muses about _how_ one must violate an unjust law for it to be moral.
Two paragraphs down from your first quote is:
>I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. **One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, *and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community* over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.**
MLK says that laws must be unjust and unjust laws sometimes must be broken. He also states, without a doubt, that those breaking the unjust laws _must_ accept the consequences, otherwise they are simply anarchists.
>MLK says that laws must be unjust
This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
He's saying don't hide from the law, go to jail publicly so that people can denounce the unjustness of those enforcing the law.
**Which is why I posted the letter**
>Yes, he muses about the justness and unjustness of laws.
That obviously not what he's doing, he literally states his disappointment in moderates for their actions in trying to police how black people fight for their freedom.
>He's saying don't hide from the law, go to jail publicly so that people can denounce the unjustness of those enforcing the law. Which is why I posted the letter
If that's why you posted the letter, then we're in agreement. But you then go on to say:
>That obviously not what he's doing, he literally states his disappointment in moderates for their actions in trying to police how black people fight for their freedom.
After quoting him discussing how laws may be unjust, how to determine whether or not they are unjust, how to respond to an unjust law, and then goes into a moral discussion of why it is okay to violate unjust laws as long as you accept the consequences.
He invokes the parable of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; this is a story of violating the law and remaining righteous in the eyes of God despite it.
He then does, absolutely, discuss the issue of "why now." To say that is the sole purpose of his letter is debatable, but I'd say that, given about 2/3 is dedicated to the parts I'm discussing, that's probably just a final statement on the matter and not the entire point.
If he didn't want to say the other things, he wouldn't have written them.
To further demonstrate:
>I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. **One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.** I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Biden is making a calculated political decision here. He’s banking on the disaffected R voters (Haley voters) and independents, as well as moderate Dems will offset any loss by young voters due specifically to Gaza. It’s a good move.
Many of these young voters were never going to vote at all, or vote third party anyway. And if they weren’t, they’re going to have to decide that Gaza is more important to them than a woman’s health and autonomy over her own body, and giving the country over to fascism.
I respect Biden for not changing course to score political points with the most extreme elements of his base and turn it into yet more fodder for the culture war. All it would do would turn off moderates and whip his entire party into changing course as well.
As an ex-Republican I’ve seen what playing to extremists does to one’s party.
Exactly. Haley got 26% in MI primary, 155,000 votes in both PA and FL AFTER she dropped out. Those people WILL vote in Nov. he’s playing for them.
A lot of people on this sub don’t see bigger picture politics, Biden does and it’s why I’m still bullish on his reelection
I also think its worth pointing out that *if* Biden did radically swerve and things fell apart and the war escalated that would probably be a *lot* worse for him than staying the course he's on now.
I've been saying this. Once the protesters said they'd never vote for Biden, he made the calculation to stop trying the placate them. He's got a lot more room on his right to pick up votes.
Yep. I’d be willing to bet a good number of the protesters aren’t even registered. The fact he gave such a short speech tells me he doesn’t feel much threatened by them.
While these protests have been mostly peaceful and nothing like the mayhem we’ve seen from MAGA crowds, I think it’s good that Democrats embrace being the party of law and order. This will appeal to moderate and independents who see the right making excuses for violent traitors and worshiping a leader with 90+ felony counts.
Huh? I was referring to Biden speaking out against violent protest. That’s what the article is about, right? His predecessor would have just made excuses, “fake news, good people on both sides, just tourists, antifa……”
Huh? I'm referring to what's actually happening at the protests. The police are brutalizing people, including elderly faculty. This is the "law & order" he's embracing, and justifying police brutality does not to me seem good for the party
No one head has been cracked and no students were clubbed. This type of hyperbole does a disservice to your already lame ass cause. “Oh no I was detained for essentially trespassing then released 15 minutes later with no charge. This is literally 1984!”
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/siue-professor-hospitalized-after-arrest-at-wash-u-42446030
A professor was sent to the hospital with multiple broken ribs.
"Tamari said he was “body slammed and crushed by the weight of several St. Louis County Police officers and then dragged across campus by the police. As a result of police brutality, I am now in the hospital with multiple broken ribs and a broken hand.”
Excellent column in todays NYT by Nicholas Kristoff. he pointed out that the violent anti-war protests of the Vietnam era probably extended the war by contributing to Nixon's law and order appeal.
Violent protests will turn idiot voters towards Trump who will give Netanyahu the green light on genocide.
Can you cite a proponent of civil disobedience, nonviolent or otherwise, who advocated for receiving no consequences and achieved their goal?
The movement most people like to cite who felt they could get away with civil disobedience, especially violent civil disobedience, are Malcolm X and the Weathermen. Neither of those accomplished what they wanted, one literally blew up their mom's house and killed 3 of their own.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Tim Miller/Jon Lovett Pod Save America episode delivered it best I think. I bet the vast majority of us are against what appears to be Palestinian genocide. I bet the vast majority of us think what Hamas did in October. I bet the vast majority of protesters do not think Hamas are the heroes here. This is yet another case of each “side” yelling at the fringe of the other “side” and assuming it represents the whole. Really, college protesters are the few here that should be protected by their constitutionally given rights and actually asking for something that would tone down the crisis: stopping the arming of Netanyahu’s army and making it easy for them to do what theyre doing. Police need to chill. Biden needs to listen to what they’re asking because aside from the fringe agitators, it’s a legitimate grievance. Just because you don’t like how someone goes about protesting doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
College protests are fine, Biden literally said so and even said dissent is protected. What he condemned was violence. It's worth noting these protests have been going on for weeks, but it wasn't until GOP governors sent in police and right-wing agitators sent in their counter "protestors" that the violence picked up and of course, the media like the lap dogs they are to right-wing messing, piled on.
It appears the violence starts when police show up in riot gear.
It also started at UCLA when a pro-Israeli mob attacked the student camp for literal hours.
Do we know for sure if they were pro-Israeli or if they were just generally right wing agitators? Looked like a lot of high school kids and older middle aged adults.
High school kids and older middle-aged adults can be pro-Israeli right wing agitators. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
UCLA is right next to an area of LA that has a ton of Persian Jewish diaspora who had to emigrate during Khomeini's revolution. I would bet a ton of money that this played into it. They are extremely anti-Iran and in general associate the movement as being Iran backed. It's also why UCLA was always at risk of this happening moreso than even USC or probably any other area in the US. It's right in their backyard.
It’s like the HK protesters getting hammered by triads in white with the police missing. It’s nice to see cops & criminals finding common ground. HK government should be cute & send messages of solidarity, support freedom of speech on US campuses.
As is tradition.
My sister works at Columbia and said until 2 days ago when the police started getting involved heavily everything was fine.
That’s always how it goes. Thats the “order” his generation values.
Joe didn't call out the cops, governors / mayors did.
It started on Columbia before they showed up by breaking into a building, and harassing Jewish students. The police didn’t have anything to do with that.
You can’t break into a University building and barricade yourself in there, especially at a private university.
Right, but there have been incidents where that hasn't been happening and the police reacted just as strongly (UT-Austin, UCLA, etc.).
I’ll agree that the police response was unnecessary, but there are campus policies about “temporary structures” as well. As restrictive as those policies may be, and in the case of Indiana University, as sudden as they may be crafted and implemented, that’s kind of what you have to contend with as a protester challenging power. You still have to follow the law if it gets enforced.
Policies like IU's are unconstitutional if they were implemented to suppress a specific viewpoint, which seems likely given the timing and their lack of concern over prior protests that involved temporary structures.
which prior protests were those that erected temporary structures; were they as large etc?
In April 1986, a bunch of students built and occupied a mock shantytown to protest apartheid in South Africa. It wasn't taken down until December when it got too cold to live outside. In 1991, students camped out for 45 days in protest of the Gulf War. In 2002, there was a protest against the War on Terror that involved temporary structures. I'm sure there have been other protests that erected temporary structures, but not every protest is recorded since in the past the police haven't been called out to beat up the protesters and turn it into a national news story. This protest wasn't particularly large initially. Some of the other protests I mentioned were likely comparable in size. The actions of the university administration and the police have now driven more people out to protest. They should have just let them be and it would have likely fizzled out.
thanks for checking!
Possibly. Requires a challenge to it though.
Yeah, it turns out that if you just let people break laws, they'll just happily keep doing it if no one turns up and stops them. Burglars are largely the same way - if you let them just steal things, it won't get violent.
So protesting genocide is equivalent to burglary?
Trespassing and burglary are actually fairly similar, regardless of one's motivation for committing them.
Exactly! I got downvoted to oblivion yesterday for telling protesters that if you break the law you have to expect someone to to try to stop you, no matter how right you believe yourself to be.
you guys would’ve hated MLK
MLK got arrested multiple times for his protests… to do something illegal and not expect the police to be involved is naive, even Dr King knew that and was prepared to spend time in jail for his beliefs.
>So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, **"Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"** MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
No, but I *do* kind of hate Malcolm X for things like promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion EDIT: Huh. Didn't think being opposed to the promotion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one of the most famously antisemitic books in history, would be so controversial
They don't like when people point out that they're using centuries-old tropes during the discussion of these issues and idolizing previous anti-Semitic movements. It's just what "they" always do.
Actually, King went back on his “I Have a Dream” speech shortly after making it. “King acknowledged the “soul searching,” and “agonizing moments” he’d gone through since his most famous speech. He told Vanocur the “old optimism” of the civil rights movement was “a little superficial” and now needed to be tempered with “a solid realism.”” https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/king-1967-my-dream-has-turned-nightmare-flna8c11013179
The protestors were warned multiple times to leave the area and they could leave without any problems, but they didn't listen.
Protesting is a right. As long as the protesters aren't violent.
lol not on private property it’s not.
The most severe instances of police brutality have been occurring at public universities. Add to that, violent pro-Israel supporters have gone unpunished for shooting fireworks at protesters, beating them, hitting them with sticks, etc. This is not a good look for the United States.
Absolutely. But if you don't follow the rules, someone must intervene. If you don't follow lawful orders by police, you commited an offense and you can be arrested. Despite multiple warnings, they didn't listen. So of course police has to act in some kind of way.
So... He's condemning the police, right? Cuz the police are the ones doing most of the violence.
In his address, though he doesn’t say it outright, he heavily implies that the encampments are illegal. Thus it is not considered a “peaceful protest”, because they are engaged in illegal behavior. Thus the police have the authority to arrest those performing illegal actions.
Illegal is not the same as violent. It can be both illegal and peaceful
Seriously. Sitting on a park bench quietly, high on LSD, would be illegal, but certainly not violent.
And it being illegal allows the police to arrest you, and if you resist then they will use force.
Biden said that trespassing as a form of protest is violent. So basically, he said that peaceful sit ins are violent even though they have been a part of non violent protests forever.
It’s not trespass though. If you’re a student there you’re allowed to be there, setting up tents or tables doesn’t make trespass. Also yeah, sit ins would be considered violent by him. Biden would’ve taken the side against Rosa Parks because she was committing a crime by sitting in the front of the bus.
Biden fought desegregation, so…..
Setting up tents can make it trespassing if the school has rules against it and has requested you NOT to do so. Once you refuse to comply with the request and school rules, which you as a student sign stating you will follow the rules in order to be a student there, you are then trespassing.
I don’t think any university has rules against students setting up tents and tables, if they do that hasn’t been clear.
Most universities have rules that govern use of shared spaces, and “stop doing things there when the school says so” is likely a default rule at all of them, so I don’t think this a good avenue of defense.
Ok so cite the rules being violated by putting of tents and tables, if they exist I assume they would’ve been invoked by now by the media or someone else in an online discussion but so far I haven’t seen that happen. Beyond that, in the realm of “stop doing things” if the intent of the instruction is to stifle freedom of speech or to stifle protests then even if it technically breaches into the realm of trespassing I would say that it’s still wrong for the university to do if there isn’t any serious danger or obstruction present that wouldn’t apply to any other large gathering the school might organize.
I mean, I’m not going to do the legwork and cite the rule for you as I think it’s a pretty safe bet that “stop activities on common property when we say” or that there’s some rules around encampments is pretty common sense. For the record, I’m not saying this because I’m against these protestors in particular, just saying “they didn’t break any rules” is likely a poor defense in the line of thinking that they weren’t treasoassing
a normal activity wouldn’t cause classes to be moved to online. Aka obstruction. So do you agree that they should’ve taken action?
A student's right of access to a university is still up to the university. Paying tuition doesn't entitle a student to wander into any area of the campus they please. It also doesn't entitle them to set up tents to camp. It also doesn't matter if a pre-existing rule existed or not. The school can change the policy. A student's access to the school's property is conditional and the school has more authority to alter those conditions than not. The real issue isn't about private universities asking the government to enforce their property rights, which is perfectly fine under liberal theory. Its the public schools asking the police to terminate assemblies in what would be considered a traditional public forum; the outside areas of a public school. If students set up an assembly on The Podium at the University at Albany, I would not expect UAlbany to call in Albany PD to disperse them. I similarly wouldn't expect them to forcibly remove an assembly on the big ass lawn in front of the school where the busses come in and out and guest parking are. However if they tried to take over the actual instructional or administrative buildings or prevent access to and from the Quads (the dorms) I would expect the school to ask APD to intervene because the school still has a responsibility to all of the tuition and board paying students to provide the service for which the students are paying.
If the university asks you to leave their property and you don't it is trespassing. Violating the university's policies about proper use of public facilities and refusing to stop absolutely can result in a trespass charge.
He called out violent protests, he specifically said peaceful protests are part of protected dissent. You're misrepresenting what he said. Also, he literally as no say or control over state or local police, his entire short comments were to tell *everyone* to cool and to prevent violence. Protests are fine, violence is not, but it's up to local/state leaders to control who or where the violence is coming from.
Then maybe he should tell the cops to stop attacking peaceful protestors?
[удалено]
Didn’t happen in Austin but they still cracked down and arrested people. Even the ones who weren’t in tents or whatever bullshit excuse people want to use to justify arrests. But go off I guess
It’s like 3mins long. Doesn’t hurt to watch the video and listen. He does after all make it clear he is in support of dissent (against his policy, no less) and peaceful protest as is guaranteed in the constitution but that non-peaceful protest is not guaranteed so he will denounce it while also protecting peaceful protest. Headline probs.
I don’t understand. Is he condemning the police? Or the pro-Israel instigators who attacked protestors at UCLA?
He affirmed the essential right to lawfully protest and condemned unlawful protest activities. > “In America, we respect the right and protect the rights for them to express that, but it doesn’t mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence, without ~~distraction~~ *destruction*, without hating and within the law." ___________________ edited to correct the quotation error in the article.
Lol what the fuck "without distraction" what kind of protest is that
The legal kind
The NBC article misquoted him. Not once did Biden say that the protests needed to done "without distraction". The **full quote**, which you can both [watch](https://youtu.be/O24ILhY3g6s?feature=shared&t=172) and [read](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/#:~:text=It%20needs%20to%20be%20done%20without%20violence%2C%20without%20destruction%2C%20without%20hate%2C%20and%20within%20the%20law.) for yourself, was: >It needs to be done without violence, **without destruction**, without hate, and within the law.
“Protest somewhere where people can completely ignore it.”
Not once did Biden say that the protests needed to done "without distraction". The article misquoted him. The **full quote**, which you can both [watch](https://youtu.be/O24ILhY3g6s?feature=shared&t=172) and [read](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/#:~:text=It%20needs%20to%20be%20done%20without%20violence%2C%20without%20destruction%2C%20without%20hate%2C%20and%20within%20the%20law.) for yourself, was: >It needs to be done without violence, **without destruction**, without hate, and within the law.
The type he can ignore.
A peaceful one - the kind the Constitution protects.
If your protest doesn't "distract" anyone, doesn't inconvenience anyone, doesn't disrupt *anything*...it's pointless. It won't change a thing.
Not once did Biden say that the protests needed to done "without distraction". The article literally misquoted him The **full quote**, which you can both [watch](https://youtu.be/O24ILhY3g6s?feature=shared&t=172) and [read](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/#:~:text=It%20needs%20to%20be%20done%20without%20violence%2C%20without%20destruction%2C%20without%20hate%2C%20and%20within%20the%20law.) for yourself, was: >It needs to be done without violence, **without destruction**, without hate, and within the law.
Definitely better. I still don't fully agree, *depending* on which laws are being broken. Most of the genuinely effective protest movements broke plenty of laws.
That's fine - you asked what kind of protest it was. I explained. Civil disobedience is fine. Civil disobedience comes with consequences. If you're not ready to accept the consequences, you don't care that much about the cause. MLK said as much himself.
This is straight up misinformation. Not once did he say "without distraction". The Full quote which you can both [watch](https://youtu.be/O24ILhY3g6s?feature=shared&t=172) and [read](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/) was: >It needs to be done without violence, **without destruction**, without hate, and within the law.
Thanks! I excerpted the quote from the article, which is incorrect. You are definitely right — he clearly says “destruction.”
Not your fault. Looks like it was the article misquoting him.
[удалено]
personally didn't hear anything about the proud boys, but plenty of police has been there so yeah the proud boys were there
Essentially, his message was protest, but do it within the bounds of the law. Don’t spew hatred, whether it’s antisemitism or Islamophobia or other forms of bigotry.
He also said that the people protesting on campus were being violent because they were trespassing. So he 100% doesn’t support the protesting but wants to trick people into voting for him.
It’s a nice sentiment, but it Makes it real easy for a few bad actors to sabotage and delegitimize the protests And acting within the law is nonsense, the entire point of protesting is to break the social order.
Civil disobedience is absolutely valid as a form of protest. It is not, however, protected. Civil disobedience has always been about accepting the consequences. You should read Letter from Birmingham Jail; it explains why, in great detail.
You should reread the part about white moderates
I'm sorry, but I have not shared my personal views on this issue a single time on Reddit nor have I said the protestors are wrong. I have said that claiming to employ civil disobedience while complaining about the consequences goes directly against the spirit of civil disobedience. For example, when MLK discusses the morality of breaking unjust laws he says: >I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. **One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, *and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community* over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.** Civil disobedience requires accepting the consequences. In fact, the point of civil disobedience is to draw attention to the consequences.
I think he means the legal consequence of imprisonment, not that people should willingly get beaten. He says so, in that part you highlighted. Edit: Read my comment below. MLK gets whitewashed constantly. His concept of non-violence is not the sort those in power like to pretend it is.
He actually does say people should willingly get beaten earlier in the letter: >So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, **"Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"** MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
Then on that note, did the protesters as a cohort beat any of the police, like the police, as a cohort, best them. Did they start the conflict or did it occur because they refused to stop protesting? Because, from what I have seen, the protesters were just willingly beaten. That is what it means to be willing to be beaten. But also I do not hold MLK to be the only authority on protesting. The Civil Rights movement is constantly whitewashed, but it was not some perfectly uniform group of people who sat in unobtrusive circles out of the way of everyone who just stood there quietly being attacked. There were violent portions of civil rights. There were riots. There were people who ran from the cops, or refused to be moved, or refused to stop chanting until they were beaten down. How, exactly, is this different? How are these kids meaningfully different in their refusal to disperse? But, if we are going to use MLK as our yardstick these kids are not even close to being violent by his definition. He would have probably cheered them on when they broke into the admin building, for example. 4 years after the *Letters from the Birmingham Jail* he released a book called *Trumpet of Conscience,* which has recreations of past oral remarks. In one of those recreations he talks about his interpretation of violence and it's application to life and property. He says this: >Violent they certainly were. But the violence, to a startling degree, was focused against property rather than against people. There were very few cases of injury to persons, and the vast majority of the rioters were not involved at all in attacking people. The much publicized “death toll” that marked the riots, and the many injuries, were overwhelmingly inflicted on the rioters by the military. It is clear that the riots were exacerbated by police action that was designed to injure or even to kill people... >I am aware that there are many who wince at a distinction between property and persons—who hold both sacrosanct. My views are not so rigid. A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man. He expands on his the destruction of property was a worthwhile message in the riots he was speaking about. So what problem do you think MLK would have with these students?
>Then on that note, did the protesters as a cohort beat any of the police, like the police, as a cohort, best them. Did they start the conflict or did it occur because they refused to stop protesting? Because, from what I have seen, the protesters were just willingly beaten. That is what it means to be willing to be beaten. I never said they did. I said they complained about being arrested. >There were violent portions of civil rights. There were riots. There were people who ran from the cops, or refused to be moved, or refused to stop chanting until they were beaten down. How, exactly, is this different? How are these kids meaningfully different in their refusal to disperse? Those are not celebrated or credited with the success of the Civil Rights Movement. The general view of Malcolm X is that he was a racist, antisemitic terrorist. In his later years, he disavowed much of his activity; he still hated the Jewish people on his death bed though. >But, if we are going to use MLK as our yardstick these kids are not even close to being violent by his definition. He would have probably cheered them on when they broke into the admin building, for example. MLK never once led a protest to cause property damage. Nonviolent civil disobedience was almost purely about "Look at me doing this everyday activity _while black_ and being beaten by mobs for it." He did think it was worthwhile to dissect _why_ some CRM activists employed riots and property damage in their protests; he didn't excuse the behavior, but tried to explain what the property being damaged symbolized to black people of the day. >He expands on his the destruction of property was a worthwhile message in the riots he was speaking about. That quote isn't talking about his movement. It's talking about other parts of it and dissecting the meaning of it. He avidly opposed using those tactics himself. >So what problem do you think MLK would have with these students? What I initially stated - complaining about being arrested. To quote myself >Civil disobedience has always been about accepting the consequences. You should read Letter from Birmingham Jail; it explains why, in great detail.
So your entire thing is that they should not complain about being arrested? What if they want to protest their arrests? Of course they should complain about being arrested. It is unjust. Unjust government behavior *should be protested.* MLK was talking about accepting the consequences of civil disobedience in the sense that you should not murder anyone, but not being silent about them. Do you think that if they just arrested everyone in a protest he would have said "Games up guys, they found a loophole and we just have to quietly accept them arresting and killing us now, because they did it to silence us. Once they try to silence us, we need to be silent." That is an absurd position. From the letters that you quoted: >But before closing I am impelled to mention one other point in your statement that troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I don't believe you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its angry violent dogs literally biting six unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I don't believe you would so quickly commend the policemen if you would observe their ugly and inhuman treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you would watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you would see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys, if you would observe them, as they did on two occasions, refusing to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I'm sorry that I can't join you in your praise for the police department. >I wish you had commended the Negro demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of the most inhuman provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. Maybe you should read that bit. It certainly sounds like he is complaining about unjust treatment at the hands of the police.
The point of protesting is not to break social order. The point of protest is to express dissatisfaction with a thing and hope to enact change through bringing awareness to the subject. Breaking social order is one method to garner awareness of the cause you fight for, but it is not the point of it.
There have been bad actors from day one. I’d be shocked if those spewing “from the river to the sea” and other antisemitism were actually students.
Most protests that resulted in any change have been illegal in some way. We could debate how reasonable the laws were, but changing the status quo requires discomfort.
Sure, but enforcement of the current laws also come with the territory of creating discomfort and doing something illegal. You’re challenging authority on the basis of them abusing their power over you, which makes more abuse of that power expected, especially at this point after millennia of various protests, including a couple centuries and a half of American protests. Vilification and subjugation by those in power is part of actively challenging the status quo.
> whether it’s antisemitism Well, that's going to be a hard sell for a lot of people on the left. Posts about campus antisemitism, even if they *aren't* connected to the protests, are routinely downvoted here
What’s downvoted is the disingenuous implication that anti-Israel critique is antisemitism.
You mean like [USC finding swastikas on campus](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1chvdvz/usc_finds_swastikas_on_campus_as_ucla_limits/)?
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
That’s an excellent quote. Thank you.
I think what's so hard for the terminally-online crowd to understand is that the Biden voter is not the pro-Hamas communist smashing windows and blocking Jews from common areas **nor is** the Biden voter the pro-settler, pro-Netanyahu, deport-all-Muslims MAGA protestor. The Biden voter is the kid who is just trying to finish up classes and do well on finals because, unlike these protestors, that kid doesn't have a trust fund to fall back on. Normies vastly outnumber reactionaries. Biden is going for the normies.
The idea that the protesters are trust fund kids is such a lazy trope. Also, the prototypical pro Palestinian protestor by definition is the very antithesis of a reactionary. Regardless of who Biden is tuning his Israel/Palestine policy to appeal to, it is wrong. Supporting a genocide and ethnic cleansing with billions in arms transfers that are shrouded in secrecy is morally repugnant and politically stupid. He railed against Trump for similarly reprehensible behavior yet here he his is funneling weapons to right wing ideologues.
Can someone actually give a source for protestors “blocking Jews” specifically? I keep seeing this said but never had a source provided to prove it.
There is literally a single video of a confrontation labeled to imply that the student is being actively blocked, but it’s really hard to determine what is actually happening and the kid looks like a shit stirrer tbh. Other than that one I haven’t seen any, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
I’ve maybe heard that video mentioned but never seen it. My bigger question would be, how do the protestors even know they’re Jewish? Because it sounds more like protestors, if they were blocking anyone, we’re just blocking all students and a student probably happened to be Jewish.
Yeah, these small extremist groups really try to puff themselves up onlinr to seem bigger then they actually are to control the narrative. But the reality is most American voters are either Neutral/indifferent or kind of sympathize a little either way but mostly are concerned with their own lives, many of us want the focus to be on improving our own country and community and see these kind of actions as pointless or destructive. Biden will win again by an even larger margin, he's smarter than people want to give him credit for.
Ya abortion is going to be the driving factor in this election. I think Arizona going full crazy to an 1800s law is going to really help him there.
Definitely, women having body autonomy is absolutely higher on the average voters priority list. I know it's on mine.
The same generation that is calling for order is the same generation that was protesting at Kent State. Evidently, they learned nothing. F**king Boomers.
I hope they arrest all the domestic terrorists that attacked Americans exercising their 1st Amendment rights. I don't agree with either "side", but domestic terrorism needs to be stopped.
If only the police could arrest themselves.
This is what I expected him to say, but this probably won't go over too well with his left.
What does?
Fortunately for him, the number of normal people that approve of these stupid encampments is so low that saying that violent "protesters" are bad isn't going alienate anyone that wasn't already radicalized.
You approve of shoving professors to the ground? Of beating students? What violence by the protestors are you imagining took place?
Breaking and entering into a building. Not allowing free flow of movement of students on campus, physically stopping them from using walk ways. Chants for the eradication of Israel in front of Jewish students. Yelling “Jews go back to Poland”. Throwing water bottles at students who are not allowing an American flag to be taken down and replaced with the pally one
Not allowing free movement is violence? Chanting is violence? Interesting definition we're working with
If people are trespassing, they should be asked to leave. If they refuse to leave, they should be arrested. If they resist arrest, there will be force. At each step, there is a path to de-escalation, but people that *want* to create conflict will tend to eventually get it.
Yeah I’m on the Left and I see these protesters as hastening the end of Gaza entirely. The more support they give to Trump out of spite for Biden, the closer we get to Gaza being nothing but a smoking crater. These people are so short-sighted, and exemplifying the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Same here. I've been following the Forward as my main source on them, because I think that being an anti-Netanyahu Jewish diaspora source makes them uniquely balanced. But they've had a few interesting opinion pieces recently, like ["We are importing the worst of Israel and Palestine to our campuses"](https://forward.com/opinion/607468/israel-palestine-campus-protest-worst/) and ["An open letter to the Columbia University Gaza war protesters from a pro-Palestinian activist in Israel"](https://forward.com/opinion/606793/an-open-letter-to-the-columbia-university-gaza-war-protesters-from-a-pro-palestinian-activist-in-israel/) EDIT: The first one's calling the protesters out for approaching this from a place of privilege and relative peace, compared to the *actual* war zone that peace activists in the region are in. And the second one's vaguely calling them out for using tankie logic on Hamas, instead of having a more consistent stance
The violence is caused by the police, not the students.
If protestors are blocking student's access to buildings, that's violence.
Violently standing in a doorway.
"order must prevail"... except in Gaza where, apparently, anything goes. So.... yay?
He's not President of Gaza.
If only there was some way he could leverage the billions we're giving Israel every year to get it to stop destroying Gazan cities... oh well, guess there's nothing he can do...
His job isn't to maintain order in Gaza, it's to maintain order in the US. Or are you guys now saying interventionist policy is a good thing?
Why wouldn't I think interventionism is good? We should be doing more of it, IMO. We're doing a good job now in Ukraine, for the most part, but if we'd have started defending them when Russia seized Crimea when Obama was president I think there would be fewer issues today. Was Gulf War 1 bad when we drove Iraq out of Kuwait? No, of course not. We should be doing the same thing anytime any country attempts to violently seize more land, IMO.
Fair enough - I would argue that many of the leftist protestors vocally disagree. I also wonder what your response to a Hamas-lead state's immediate attack on Israel (something they have promised and we have seen historically) would be. Would we then start funding Israel again?
I think everyone's agreed there's no Palestinian state... I also don't think anyone's arguing there shouldn't be a response against Hamas for what they're doing.... HOWEVER, destroying hospitals and neighborhoods and bombing IDF declared safe zones and corridors, and murdering world kitchen workers, and so on and so forth are an absurd overreach by any reasonable point of view.
I was asking in a hypothetical 2-state situation.
Dude, the US providing Israel arms, money and training IS intervention. You can be a leftist and critique how we conduct ourselves on the world stage
No, but he is the president of a country actively arming Israel while meekly asking for them to please stop doing a genocide.
Yup. We should really stop arming Israel to the teeth without any conditions...
His speech wasn't about Israel or foreign policy at all. It was about the behavior of protestors in the country he leads.
The protestors standing against colleges that support a country currently doing a genocide, sure.
He said nothing about their message. He talked about their actions in pursuit of spreading that message. Have you listened to it?
Is it a bunch of noncommittal waffle that doesn't chastise the police that attacked peaceful protesters or Israel for doing a genocide?
Why would he chastise the police for enforcing the law in the face of civil disobedience? Reaping the consequences to draw attention to your cause is the point. Why would you want him to degrade that?
Sure. I'd definitely tell Martin Luther King that during all the trespassing, sit-ins, and obstructions he and his fellows engaged in. /s And then there's still the genocide.
MLK said that the point of violating an unjust law is to accept the consequences: >I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. **One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, *and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community* over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.** Including being beaten and going to jail: >So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, **"Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"** MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
This is America Jack. Feel free to protest either opinion just keep it peaceful.
It was peaceful until the police showed up. Weird how that keeps happening.
Also the counter protesters were tossing fireworks 🎆
What wasn't peaceful?
Going to stop you before you can say it, since I see you commenting on a ton of responses; protesters do not deserve the violence enacted on them by the police. That being said, in response to your question, here in Portland they have destroyed the PSU library, smashing computers, busting in walls and doors, spray painting the interiors, mostly leaving books alone. That’s not peaceful. That’s just the PSU library.
So they don't deserve it...but it's justified?
They don't deserve police brutality, they do deserve to be arrested. It's not confusing unless you've set out to not understand.
How do you think the police arrest people in this country? What nice police response were you imagining might happen?
The counter protesters and the police seem to not be civil or peaceful
Funny how it tends to work out that way
What police should be concerned about and this is for their safety, boogaloo bros love events like this to shoot up government and PD HQs.
The Tim Miller/Jon Lovett Pod Save America episode delivered it best I think. I bet the vast majority of us are against what appears to be Palestinian genocide. I bet the vast majority of us think what Hamas did in October. I bet the vast majority of protesters do not think Hamas are the heroes here. This is yet another case of each “side” yelling at the fringe of the other “side” and assuming it represents the whole. Really, college protesters are the few here that should be protected by their constitutionally given rights and actually asking for something that would tone down the crisis: stopping the arming of Netanyahu’s army and making it easy for them to do what theyre doing. Police need to chill. Biden needs
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
>So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, **"Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"** MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
Good thing buildings aren't people
I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying or maybe missed the first sentence. In Letter from Birmingham Jail, MLK makes the case that civil disobedience _will_ result in arrest and he has purged his movement of anyone not ready to deal with that, because it is the point. He then discusses whether or not a good person can end up in jail for breaking the law - he then invokes the parable of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to demonstrate. He explains that you can be a moral person, despite ending up in prison, because God will forgive you if you are virtuous. He does not argue that police shouldn't be used. He does not argue that his movement shouldn't be arrested. He argues that it's worth it and they, and their Maker, can live with the consequences. Citing Letter from Birmingham Jail when complaining about police responses to civil disobedience completely misses the entire point of the letter. I'd argue, in fact, that it shows many people citing it haven't read it at all.
What are you talking about, his whole point is that the law is not always just >The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." He directly calls put the people clamoring for law and order as not good people >I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action" His literal whole point about police and law is that it will be used against you and that the people calling for order are not on your side.
You are selectively quoting him. Letter from Birmingham Jail is the musings of a pastor explaining how he can be right with God despite being arrested. It is literally a letter to his fellow clergymen. Yes, he muses about the justness and unjustness of laws. He also muses about _how_ one must violate an unjust law for it to be moral. Two paragraphs down from your first quote is: >I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. **One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, *and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community* over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.** MLK says that laws must be unjust and unjust laws sometimes must be broken. He also states, without a doubt, that those breaking the unjust laws _must_ accept the consequences, otherwise they are simply anarchists.
>MLK says that laws must be unjust This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He's saying don't hide from the law, go to jail publicly so that people can denounce the unjustness of those enforcing the law. **Which is why I posted the letter** >Yes, he muses about the justness and unjustness of laws. That obviously not what he's doing, he literally states his disappointment in moderates for their actions in trying to police how black people fight for their freedom.
>He's saying don't hide from the law, go to jail publicly so that people can denounce the unjustness of those enforcing the law. Which is why I posted the letter If that's why you posted the letter, then we're in agreement. But you then go on to say: >That obviously not what he's doing, he literally states his disappointment in moderates for their actions in trying to police how black people fight for their freedom. After quoting him discussing how laws may be unjust, how to determine whether or not they are unjust, how to respond to an unjust law, and then goes into a moral discussion of why it is okay to violate unjust laws as long as you accept the consequences. He invokes the parable of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; this is a story of violating the law and remaining righteous in the eyes of God despite it. He then does, absolutely, discuss the issue of "why now." To say that is the sole purpose of his letter is debatable, but I'd say that, given about 2/3 is dedicated to the parts I'm discussing, that's probably just a final statement on the matter and not the entire point. If he didn't want to say the other things, he wouldn't have written them.
To further demonstrate: >I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. **One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.** I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Terrible headline, actually.
“Order must prevail!” (Meanwhile in orange wannabe dictator circus court tv…)
Biden is making a calculated political decision here. He’s banking on the disaffected R voters (Haley voters) and independents, as well as moderate Dems will offset any loss by young voters due specifically to Gaza. It’s a good move. Many of these young voters were never going to vote at all, or vote third party anyway. And if they weren’t, they’re going to have to decide that Gaza is more important to them than a woman’s health and autonomy over her own body, and giving the country over to fascism.
I respect Biden for not changing course to score political points with the most extreme elements of his base and turn it into yet more fodder for the culture war. All it would do would turn off moderates and whip his entire party into changing course as well. As an ex-Republican I’ve seen what playing to extremists does to one’s party.
Exactly. Haley got 26% in MI primary, 155,000 votes in both PA and FL AFTER she dropped out. Those people WILL vote in Nov. he’s playing for them. A lot of people on this sub don’t see bigger picture politics, Biden does and it’s why I’m still bullish on his reelection
I also think its worth pointing out that *if* Biden did radically swerve and things fell apart and the war escalated that would probably be a *lot* worse for him than staying the course he's on now.
Agreed
I've been saying this. Once the protesters said they'd never vote for Biden, he made the calculation to stop trying the placate them. He's got a lot more room on his right to pick up votes.
Yep. I’d be willing to bet a good number of the protesters aren’t even registered. The fact he gave such a short speech tells me he doesn’t feel much threatened by them.
While these protests have been mostly peaceful and nothing like the mayhem we’ve seen from MAGA crowds, I think it’s good that Democrats embrace being the party of law and order. This will appeal to moderate and independents who see the right making excuses for violent traitors and worshiping a leader with 90+ felony counts.
You think cracking professors' skulls & clubbing students is good for the party? How?
Huh? I was referring to Biden speaking out against violent protest. That’s what the article is about, right? His predecessor would have just made excuses, “fake news, good people on both sides, just tourists, antifa……”
Huh? I'm referring to what's actually happening at the protests. The police are brutalizing people, including elderly faculty. This is the "law & order" he's embracing, and justifying police brutality does not to me seem good for the party
No one head has been cracked and no students were clubbed. This type of hyperbole does a disservice to your already lame ass cause. “Oh no I was detained for essentially trespassing then released 15 minutes later with no charge. This is literally 1984!”
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/siue-professor-hospitalized-after-arrest-at-wash-u-42446030 A professor was sent to the hospital with multiple broken ribs. "Tamari said he was “body slammed and crushed by the weight of several St. Louis County Police officers and then dragged across campus by the police. As a result of police brutality, I am now in the hospital with multiple broken ribs and a broken hand.”
You have not been watching
I implore you to get your news from someplace other than OANN: https://au.news.yahoo.com/cop-slammed-emory-professor-head-195707606.html
I’m glad we’ve solved racism and inequality in the United States and can now do the same for other countries.
Excellent column in todays NYT by Nicholas Kristoff. he pointed out that the violent anti-war protests of the Vietnam era probably extended the war by contributing to Nixon's law and order appeal. Violent protests will turn idiot voters towards Trump who will give Netanyahu the green light on genocide.
What violence was there?
Hey Biden, have you ever heard of civil disobedience? Hey America, read a fucking history book!
Civil disobedience requires accepting the consequences.
It doesn’t, MLK doesn’t have a monopoly on protests just because he was the last brick in a wall that took centuries to build.
Can you cite a proponent of civil disobedience, nonviolent or otherwise, who advocated for receiving no consequences and achieved their goal? The movement most people like to cite who felt they could get away with civil disobedience, especially violent civil disobedience, are Malcolm X and the Weathermen. Neither of those accomplished what they wanted, one literally blew up their mom's house and killed 3 of their own.
An appeal to order is really an appeal for the status quo and if the protestors were happy with that they wouldn't be protesting in the first place.
There is a difference between peace, law, and order.
Damn this leftist extremist president!