World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
If peaceful protest is going to be consistently met with violent police response; maybe they should stop being peaceful from the outset.
I wonder how long it will take for enough to realise their government is not compatible with protests. Peer pressure does not encourage authoritarians.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK
The running platform was making empathetic people angry; small scale protests are a badge of honor and large scale protests are a mild annoyance to be dealt with however they deem fit.
It won’t happen at this rate. Last thing that was closest to that was the CHOP zone in Seattle a few years ago. And that still fell through. Most protest folks that participate won’t fight back since most are against baring arms and only want it to be via peace since they are too afraid to die for something. They will shift that fear on to their peers and react as well with “I don’t want to have people miss me” or “I don’t have the time to up and remove my life from what I’ve worked towards so far”
Ah yes, the CHOP zone arguing for zero police, that turned into a violent, crime riddled zone where the protesters eventually all left because, against all they believed in, without police crime runs rampant and they don’t like having their possessions destroyed/stolen, or being assaulted/killed.
It was a wonderful example of how dumb most protesters are and how they don’t even understand the consequences of what they’re protesting for.
"FreedomAdvocate" the bootlicker. The definition of irony, if anyone needed it.
Like how bills that goes away our rights tend to have names that sound like they expand them
If security shows up to stop protestors from leaving, they aren't there to secure the peace, they are there to oppress.
They weren’t there to stop them from leaving, they were there to make them leave the right way - after being identified. The protesters didn’t like this though since they didn’t want to be held accountable for their actions, which is ironic because they want everyone else to be held accountable for things that weren’t even anything to do with their actions.
How can you create an account with that name and also say you must comply with any authority even when they're infringing on your rights? There's no legal requirement to identify themselves (and even then, only to police, not to security) unless they're suspected of commiting a crime. Being trespassed is not a crime. Trespassing is. They were told they had to leave, and on attempting to leave they were prevented from doing so, so they had not committed a crime and were being prevented from complying with the trespass order.
You can’t accuse someone of trespassing if you prevent them from leaving. No one is required to identify themselves to security.
Trespassing requires you to be notified that you shouldn’t be there. Without notice, there is no trespassing. After giving notice, trespassing only occurs if they remain on the property in spite of being notified they’re not allowed to be there. By preventing them from leaving, you are preventing them from satisfying your requirement for them not to be there, and thus undermining any trespassing charge.
Even if they were trespassing, none of that justifies being assaulted by police officers.
Oh brother...
They should start doing minor acts of vandalism in places where there are no cameras like emptying all the toilet rolls all the time. But not too obviously and consistently. Just occasionally when they enter a toilet.
Personally, I'm all for vandalizing the property of zionists and their supporters.
It shouldn't even be that difficult. Could probably rig up a drone to drop bricks or paint on their cars, for example.
What would the accomplished by doing that?
seems like it would just make a lot of people angry without letting them know who did it.
Tank the universities rating and cost it financially.
Sure, but let's step back and analyze it a little more.
Protest itself does not achieve political change. Its usefulness is in direct action or in recruiting those present into further action, education, and organizations. Liberal protests are state-sanctioned parades. Real protests tend to have an actual action to take, demands to be met, people to impact, costs to incur on others.
The terminology of "peaceful protest" is already poisoned and should be questioned. The media and politicians - and those propagandized downstream, all conflate private property destruction and violence. If a protest breaks windows, suddenly it is no longer "peaceful" and can be rejected by the propagandized as invalid and not to be supported. The US is full of such good little piggies, happy to align with the ruling class picking their pocket and doing actual violence because they exist exclusively in a world of capitalist propaganda.
Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism. It's already done this for private property destruction by environmentalists, peace activists during all major wars (except WWII, where American Nazis were coddled and of course did not damage private property), labor organizers, anti-segregation organizers, socialists, communists, Mexicans, Chinese, Native Americans, etc. They happily do it again against anti-genocide protesters, particularly because they can play on the islamophobic use of the terrorism label at the same time. Like all fascistic logic, they must frame themselves as the true victims, so they also happily call every critic of Israel an antisemite.
All of this bombards the US population 24/7. Americans exist in a haze of accusations and terms they barely understand, trying to slot it into what could only charitably called an ideology - the naked reactionaries in red and the obfuscated reactionaries in blue.
All of this is to say that the greatest barrier in the US is education, and education begins with agitation, e.g. these protests in any form. Get as many people as possible to show up to the next thing, to organize the next thing, and spread knowledge.
Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it's not terrorism if you only destroy property.
Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.
Burning down a Tesla dealership is thus not terrorism. It is violent, and it's definitely political, but the target is not civilians but property. In a similar manner, the destruction of the NordStream pipeline was also not terrorism, by definition.
On the flipside, you can argue that some things politicians do are terrorism - if you remove someone's disability benefits that could cause them tangible harm, and thus could be considered violence, in which case a politician attacking someone's benefits would be committing terrorism against the benefit recipients. It's also plain to see that invading a country, slaughtering a bunch of people, and bringing some back as hostages is terrorism; but so is raising entire cities and levelling buildings full of civilians.
Terrorism has many different flavours under its definition, yet so many people just have a vague idea of what terrorism is in their minds that doesn't hold any rationality.
Many people who only damage property are still labeled as terrorists by the powers that be. The dictionary can be quite misleading, as it does not really analyze inconsistent usage, particularly for political or propaganda purposes.
For example, "ecoterrorists". Classically labeled as such even when just destroying property. Or even sometimes just for slowing down logistics. Predominately First Nations protesters and activists were labelled "ecoterrorists" by Rick Orman, citing examples like chaining themselves to equipment.
The inconsistent usage has at least two means of biased use. I've already mentioned one, which is using the term for those damaging private property or slowing down enterprise, i.e. equating damage to private property as violence (when private enterprise seizes land or destroys water this is never called ecoterrorism). The other is in inconsistent application: it is a label only routinely used by the targets of capitalist-run states. When their states destroy entire cities and target civilians, it is not called terrorism. When their targets go after a politician insteas of strictly military installations, suddenly they are terrorists. Hell, they can be called terrorists even when going after only military targets. The actusl use of the term corresponds to the means used and the political and ethnic background of those engaging in the acts more than whether the acts are violence for political (isn't everything political?) ends. Terrorism is when a car bomb and not a JDAM.
The real meaning of terrorism must be understood through describing its actual mainstream use. Descriptivism not prescriptivism, lest we miss the reality of propaganda. This is important because the term will continue to be used as I described and to justify rounding up protesters that occupy buildings or block highways or burn down a Tesla dealership. It doesn't really matter ehat the dictionary says, tge law will say enough, the cops will arrest on orders of preventing "terrorism", the judge will convict and sentence based on calling a dumpster fire terrorism, and one might even get sent to a black site to contain such "dangerous" people, "terrorists".
And this is not new. Anarchists and other cool people were lazily labelled exactly the same way over a century ago for the same types of acts.
Your reply is very well written and on the whole I agree. The one thing I would say is that I am not simply dismissing the mainstream usage of the word, but pointing out its misuse as intentional deception given that the usage contradicts what the word describes. I aim to point out that the word is actively being used for propaganda, and encourage others to associate it as such.
Thanks!
I would say that if a word has been misused for a century it actually just has a new meaning. And I'm not aware of it ever being used consistently.
Yes, once protests start breaking laws by damaging property and committing acts of violence, they’re no longer peaceful.
lmao did you even read what I wrote about conflating private property damage and violence?
I did. What these people did wasn’t just property damage being treated like violence - there was actual physical violence when they were being held, in the place that they were taking over mind you, until the police could get there. Then more violence when the police got there.
You are, to put it mildly, full of shit. The only violence was the police beating and hurting protesters.
Please try to be more honest going forward.
You know it’s all on video, don’t you? You know you’re the one that’s full of shit, don’t you?
The protesters were trying to force their way out of the building they were occupying. They got violent when they weren’t being allowed to leave.
Please try to be more honest going forward.
lmao trying to pretend that trying to leave a building you've been locked in by force, by cops, is protester violence.
They were told to leave or else they would be trespassing, yet they were prevented from leaving. If you are unlawfully being detained then reasonable force is appropriate to try and leave.
The “violent police response” was in response to the protesters turning violent when they were locked in the building that they illegally took over. The police locked them in so they could identify and/or arrest every one of them as they came out, but the protesters didn’t want to be identified and held accountable for their actions, so they turned violent. That violence was met with resistance by the police, in the form of physical restraint.
It’s all on video btw. We can see that the protesters are the ones that first became violent.
They had no requirement to identify themselves to campus Public Safety Officers. PSO's are not police. Locking them in the building is clearly unlawful detainment, and must invalidate any trespass charge as they were prevented from leaving (to be guilty of trespass you must first be notified and then remain in spite of being allowed to leave). Reasonable force is aboslutely an appropriate response to unlawful detainment.
Taking over a university facility and making demands isn't "peaceful." Peaceful is sitting outside of University property and protesting.
Not to mention that the protesters are the ones that turned violent when faced with the police attempting to identify and arrest them lol. It’s like they forget that it’s all being recorded by multiple people lol
Lemmy doesn't like to hear this, they are quickly turning into Reddit 2.0...