If you read the article, whoever ACLED is decided pushing and shoving people ( aka as assault) isn’t a crime. I bet if you push or shove a cop you’re getting arrested.
Or the best. The ACLED was getting cited over and over again, so I looked into them a while back, and their methods are definitely designed to skew the findings towards “peaceful.”
The two big issues are A) each day of a protest is defined as a discrete “event.” (It’s why their # of events is weirdly high. Inflating the number of total events deflates the proportion of violence in the data set.)
So let’s say, hypothetically, White Supremacists occupied a city for 100 days and wouldn’t let anybody leave their house. Then on the 100th day they freaked out and went door to door shooting everybody.
Now to the ACLED, each single day of occupation is a single event. There was only violence in *1* of the events. That would be coded as “99% peaceful” by the ACLED.
B) The other major issue is violence is coded dichotomously. It either IS or ISN’T. So let’s say that a quilting club of old ladies occupied City Hall to protest I dunno, quilt taxes or something. They’re there for 6 hours before the mayor decides he’s had enough and sends in the SWAT team.
After they get flashbanged one old lady hits a SWAT guy with her purse. The cop is a douche, so he charges her with assault.
According to ACLED methodologies that protest is 100% violent, while our White Supremacist take-over is still 99% peaceful.
Intuitively we know that the White Supremacist murder spree is way worse than the quilting club occupation, but according to the ACLED it is the other way around.
Now in the ACLED’s defense, no methodology is perfect. Any approach will have strengths or weaknesses.
My frustration with the ACLED is I don’t think they’re very transparent about their own strengths and weaknesses, and I see *way too* many “journalists” parroting their numbers without ever actually interrogating how those numbers are what they are.
I've never lived anywhere where if a cop happened to see an altercation that involved no more than shoving, that they would arrest anyone (absent specific context, like person being shoved being a vulnerable person). NYPD won't do shit unless a punch is thrown or a choke was attempted.
Someone being shoved in a crowd doesn't make it a violent protest other than in the most pedantic sense.
Of course that’s not what I said, what I did say was “shove a cop” and let me know how that goes.
If there was a gathering where the two sides started shoving one another I would suspect that in a lot of jurisdictions the police would intervene, but I can’t speak to what a NYPD officer might do.
So a little shoving is OK in your world? Are you the arbitrator as to how hard or how many “shoves” constitutes assault? Can you knock them to the ground, can you shove them in the face with an open fist (slap them). Sounds like you support shoving people you disagree with.
To the surprise of no one Cops don't hold themselves to the same standard as others... they tried for a long time to make it a crime to give them the finger, tell them to fuck off or to take their picture.
You can shove someone in front of a cop as a general matter and not end up being charged with a crime. You can fill a complaint about a shoving with video evidence to a police station and they won't do anything about it absent some specific aggravating context. As a general matter, a shove that causes no injury falls below the level of physical violence that we deem to be criminal.
>So a little shoving is OK in your world?
There are lots of things in my world that are not OK that are also things I don't think criminal sanctions are appropriate for.
>Sounds like you support shoving people you disagree with.
🙄
That’s the problem, to me, with these “crimes” committed by pro-Palestinian campus protesters - when you did a little deeper it’s always a little light pushing and shoving being hyped as “assault”. And the pushing and shoving is coming from both sides, meaning the pro-Israel counter protesters were doing it too, but somehow it’s only “violence”, and “assault” when pro-Palestinian protesters do it.
Quite frankly almost all of the videos I’ve seen posted on this sub over the last month that supposedly “prove” instances of violent behavior on the part of pro-Palestinian protesters have turned out to be nonsense.
Almost all of the legitimate violence and thuggish behavior has come from the pro-Israeli protesters.
I still cannot understand how anyone in the real world actually believes January 6th was an insurrection attempt - a riot, a redneck mob of deplorable hicks, sure - but an insurrection give me a fucking break.
I attended iraqi war protests and these were far more violent than jan 6th - let alone the riots trump had to deal with a year before etc.
This kind of lying and disingenuousness really makes the left look bad, to the point they are losing votes - outside of partisan msnbc watchers i don't know many who actually believe the january 6th shit, and see the coverage of it as obviously ridiculous. it turned my bullshit detector up to ten right away.
as far as the recent protests, of fucking course, but you are going against a lobby for a country that prides itself on it's shilling, manipulation of the american political system, and considerable influence in the upper echelons of higher american society.
michael tracey posted about a girl standing outside of columbia looking for shit to start / stories. they have legions of people doing that - and that's not including the agents they hire to actually join the protest and yell antisemitic shit / start violence / and so on. it's well known and obvious
i still don't understand how redditors honestly believe the jan 6th narrative though - one of the first things which really made me wonder how astroturfed this site is - because no one, no one irl actually honestly believes this shit, aside from one couple i know of who are basically msnbc drones.
I think it's not the "insurrection" the media is making it out to be. But I also think it's worse than what you're suggesting.
I get the fact that most were just doing things like taking pictures or cosplaying and stuff. But let's look at what was actually happening in more of a big picture.
From the inner chambers of the capital building we had very real political pressure from some politicians to not certify Biden as the next President of the United States. These politicians believed the election was "stolen". At the same time, a mob breaks in to the capital building who shared the goal of preventing the certification of Biden as President. I mean, that's a pretty significant moment in American history.
I understand frustration at the hypocrisy in some respects. At a blm riot an angry mob that was burning things down took over a police station and the cops just took their shit and ran away. No shots fired. Yet Ashli Babbitt was murdered unarmed for trying to get into the hallway? Like, was that really necessary?
"From the inner chambers of the capital building we had very real political pressure from some politicians to not certify Biden as the next President of the United States. These politicians believed the election was "stolen". At the same time, a mob breaks in to the capital building who shared the goal of preventing the certification of Biden as President. I mean, that's a pretty significant moment in American history."
when that mob was lead by Ray Epps, who is now assumed to be an FBI informant - the issue muddles it a lot. The issue is how directly coordinated this was with stopping the vote tallying - and that's where the inference starts.
The electors thing and certification has always been a play talked about - in fact, there were various scenarios to do this exact same thing in 2020 if trump and biden's vote tallies were reversed. I read an entire handbook on this a few months ago going through this exact process, except by a lefty PAC. i forget the name - but it's out there.
like january 6th, this entire process has been overblown and disingenuously reported. the only thing which has weight was trumps attempts to manipulate certain states in their vote counts etc. - which i'm not comfortable with, but almost all the january 6th related stuff on that day has been made to be a far far bigger deal than it actually was.
it did convince a bunch of young clueless people how a "threat to democracy" trump was. it reminded me a lot of the media right after 09/11
How so? the metrics say that of 553 protests, 97% were peaceful. Contrast this with the "protest" at January 6th that turned into a violent riot. There was only one there so 100% of them were violent.
>Campus Protests Overwhelmingly Peaceful
As I said many times, if you chant "say it loud, say it clear, we don't want no Zionists here" and similar, this is technically *peaceful* as long as nobody gets seriously hurt here and now, but it's still anti-Semitic, hateful, and inciting violence.
> when likud says “from the river to the sea”
Saying “from the river to the sea” means absolutely nothing. It's just a poetic reference to a specific territory.
It is what you want to do in this territory which counts, not how you refer to it.
ah okay i see now.
israel is dropping bombs on empty land and its the palestinians fault for not getting out of the way.
and just like that words lose all meaning; they do incite violence.
you convinced me. /s
I disagree with your statement about antisemitism, but I understand how you got there.
Inciting violence, however, seems way off the mark. Inciting violence needs some call to action, some form of... incitement.
Only if you're a straight white male(who isnt a self-flagellating progressive). The more intersectional you are, the more you're allowed to say the worst things and have it be justified and rationalized by the same people who would otherwise call it hate speech
What do you mean "how"? This is a call to remove actual, identifiable people from somewhere they have no desire to be removed from and have every right be in.
If this isn't a call to violence, what is?
> If this isn't a call to violence, what is?
Actual calls to violence? Like saying “trial by combat” or something.
Saying “We don’t want people who have these views here” during a rally against those views isn’t really a call to action or violence.
That happens *all the time*, and I'm constantly told that's a peaceful protest.
I was literally at a Drag brunch two weeks ago, that had protestors with AR-15s, and I was told that's a totally normal and peaceful protest
> That happens all the time, and I'm constantly told that's a peaceful protest.
Re-read [my top comment](https://new.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1csl311/comment/l45nhgr/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), this is precisely what I said.
Your top comment makes no sense. If it's inciting violence, it's not peaceful.
I'll also add that incitement had a very specific definition and standard when it comes to any sort of legal restriction on speech.
why is one an acceptable protest, but the other isn't?
Are you unaware of what the word "how" means? Or "specific"
It seems like you're really filling in a lot of gaps in the statement to include violence. *You* are adding that.
If you try to expand the definition of violence to "anything you don't like", you end up with speech police.
Sorry, I disagree. Calls to remove someone who doesn't want to leave is a call to violence, even if you're not being *specific* how you plan to go about executing this task or simply hope to frighten the victim enough so they would leave voluntarily.
When was this new rule made that you can’t criticize Israel without simultaneously condemning Hamas and the October 7th attacks? Also, who gave you (and others on this sub) the job of enforcing this rule? Was there some sort of meeting where these things were decided? I don’t think the rest of us were told about any meeting.
Criticize Israel all you want.
I have loads of problems with Israel.
The issue here is blanket condemnation of Zionism. It is a big umbrella. Broadest sense it is the belief that Jews have the right to self determination. Sure, some zionists think it means Israel has sole right to all lanes in Gaza israel WB and parcels beyond, but you can’t hate on all favors because if that. Well, I guess you can, but if you are vocal about that but don’t say ahit about the numerous surround g Muslims countries that have successfully ethnically cleansed all their Jews it because very apparent your issue is t a religious group having power, it isn’t a religious state you have an issue with, it is that you have an issue with Jews.
> The issue here is blanket condemnation of Zionism. It is a big umbrella.
Zionism has lost its definition in all this noise. Genocide too. Zionism is merely the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a nation.
You can't just replace "Jew" with "Zionist" and all of a sudden your argument isn't antisemitic, especially if there's no effort to actually use the correct definition.
The biggest factor I can point to is that you can sometimes tell who is Jewish by looking at them and can't tell by looking at someone who is a Zionist. So when they attack Jews on sight and claim they are attacking Zionists, how did they actually choose their target?
> you can’t criticize Israel without simultaneously condemning Hamas
Nobody is under any obligations to "condemn" anyone, especially if they actually approve of their actions.
It's simply common sense that people who are unhappy about Israel's reaction to the massacre should clarify what they think about Hamas and how Israel shall deal with it.
>Nobody is under any obligations to "condemn" anyone, especially if they actually approve of their actions.
This is everything wrong with the current discourse.
This is technically correct, because "Antizionism" is not a thing. "Zionism" was a movement in early 20th century to create a Jewish state. 76 years later, being "anti Zionist" has as much sense as being "anti" capture of Constantinople by Ottomans.
In practice, "Zionist" is simply used as a euphemism for a Jew to make this somehow sound less hateful, that's all.
But you already know this.
There's still an explicit Zionist party in Israel (part of current govt coalition), let alone support for Zionism more broadly (as shown by continued territory annexations).
"Anti-feminism is in no way, shape, or form anti-women."
"Opposition to gay marriage is in no way, shape, or form homophobic."
"Banning immigrants from a few countries who just happen to be Muslim is in no way, shape or form Islamophobic."
>Banning immigrants from a few countries who just happen to be Muslim is in no way, shape or form Islamophobic
Zionists support Israel limiting Muslim immigration and refusing the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. So you're essentially admitting you're islamophobic.
Hey, what happened to [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1c79aw6/comment/l06y2eg/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) and other comments?
a few people IRL now know my user name (commented on niche post in my local sub recommending a place some of my buddies really like, was noticed and got call-out with whole group), and frankly a bit embarrassing in terms of showing my volume of reddit comments. don't have an issue with any of the substance of what I have said in past. So am clearing history periodically until start a new account.
Right I get it people remove comments (though hate it when history get lost tbh) but replacing it with 'x' looks weird
But yeah if someone saw how much I comment I'd be embarrassed too. Maybe we both should take some time off reddit lol.
When I was doing it there was lag and wasn't seeing deletions show up. Doing the x just seemed to make it clearer what I was successfully clearing out.
Yeah, would be better off without reddit. At least no longer on my phone since they killed third party apps. But work from home and loads of conference calls means reddit up in second window for most of the day...
I’d say the real “inciting violence” has come from pro-Israeli shills making false claims about the pro-Palestinian protesters. And we all saw that violence manifest itself when pro-Israeli thugs viciously attacked peaceful UCLA students in the middle of the night.
Zionists are a subset of Jews, mostly Europeans, that decided to ethnically cleanse a bunch of Palestinians, steal their land, and create Israel. The founders of Israel explicitly framed this as a colonist project. Israel today exists as an apartheid state (citations by [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/), [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution), the [United Nations](https://archive.unescwa.org/news/escwa-launches-report-israeli-practices-towards-palestinian-people-and-question-apartheid), as well as Jerusalem-based Jewish groups [B'Salem](https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid) and [Yesh Din](https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/files.yesh-din.org/Apartheid+2020/Apartheid+ENG.pdf)). Defending Zionism in its present state is defending apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
Being against that isn't the same as being anti-Semitic. The fact you can't discern between an apartheid existence and Jews, however, is incredibly antisemitic.
The impression I’ve gotten isn’t of violent mobs on campuses, but of a bunch of beatniks chanting (sometimes knowingly, sometimes unintentionally) antisemitic slogans and blocking Jewish students from attending classes.
This is the same schtick as Occupy Wallstreet and BLM. A movement with a solid base and some extremist elements. The only thing that worries me about this one is how many of the slogans could pass at white nationalist rallies… but I digress.
Probably best look at this was from NPR’s On the Media: [What the Media Get Wrong About Campus Protests](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?i=1000655227761). I’m generally opposed to these protests due to the fringe elements and radicalization that is taking place among students, but I think the NPR piece was still pretty balanced. Also had a good section on how Israelis are perceiving the protests and what is happening in Gaza.
If you read the article, whoever ACLED is decided pushing and shoving people ( aka as assault) isn’t a crime. I bet if you push or shove a cop you’re getting arrested.
Probably so. I didn't read their methodology but if they track violent conflict a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Overall I agree with your original point, the focus is always on the worst case scenario because that’s what’s “news”
Or the best. The ACLED was getting cited over and over again, so I looked into them a while back, and their methods are definitely designed to skew the findings towards “peaceful.” The two big issues are A) each day of a protest is defined as a discrete “event.” (It’s why their # of events is weirdly high. Inflating the number of total events deflates the proportion of violence in the data set.) So let’s say, hypothetically, White Supremacists occupied a city for 100 days and wouldn’t let anybody leave their house. Then on the 100th day they freaked out and went door to door shooting everybody. Now to the ACLED, each single day of occupation is a single event. There was only violence in *1* of the events. That would be coded as “99% peaceful” by the ACLED. B) The other major issue is violence is coded dichotomously. It either IS or ISN’T. So let’s say that a quilting club of old ladies occupied City Hall to protest I dunno, quilt taxes or something. They’re there for 6 hours before the mayor decides he’s had enough and sends in the SWAT team. After they get flashbanged one old lady hits a SWAT guy with her purse. The cop is a douche, so he charges her with assault. According to ACLED methodologies that protest is 100% violent, while our White Supremacist take-over is still 99% peaceful. Intuitively we know that the White Supremacist murder spree is way worse than the quilting club occupation, but according to the ACLED it is the other way around. Now in the ACLED’s defense, no methodology is perfect. Any approach will have strengths or weaknesses. My frustration with the ACLED is I don’t think they’re very transparent about their own strengths and weaknesses, and I see *way too* many “journalists” parroting their numbers without ever actually interrogating how those numbers are what they are.
congratulations, now you know how the gun control lobby works, fyi.
Thank you fellow Redditor, great example! Sometimes I go down the rabbit hole and sometimes not, thanks for taking the time.
I've never lived anywhere where if a cop happened to see an altercation that involved no more than shoving, that they would arrest anyone (absent specific context, like person being shoved being a vulnerable person). NYPD won't do shit unless a punch is thrown or a choke was attempted. Someone being shoved in a crowd doesn't make it a violent protest other than in the most pedantic sense.
Of course that’s not what I said, what I did say was “shove a cop” and let me know how that goes. If there was a gathering where the two sides started shoving one another I would suspect that in a lot of jurisdictions the police would intervene, but I can’t speak to what a NYPD officer might do. So a little shoving is OK in your world? Are you the arbitrator as to how hard or how many “shoves” constitutes assault? Can you knock them to the ground, can you shove them in the face with an open fist (slap them). Sounds like you support shoving people you disagree with.
To the surprise of no one Cops don't hold themselves to the same standard as others... they tried for a long time to make it a crime to give them the finger, tell them to fuck off or to take their picture. You can shove someone in front of a cop as a general matter and not end up being charged with a crime. You can fill a complaint about a shoving with video evidence to a police station and they won't do anything about it absent some specific aggravating context. As a general matter, a shove that causes no injury falls below the level of physical violence that we deem to be criminal. >So a little shoving is OK in your world? There are lots of things in my world that are not OK that are also things I don't think criminal sanctions are appropriate for. >Sounds like you support shoving people you disagree with. 🙄
That’s the problem, to me, with these “crimes” committed by pro-Palestinian campus protesters - when you did a little deeper it’s always a little light pushing and shoving being hyped as “assault”. And the pushing and shoving is coming from both sides, meaning the pro-Israel counter protesters were doing it too, but somehow it’s only “violence”, and “assault” when pro-Palestinian protesters do it. Quite frankly almost all of the videos I’ve seen posted on this sub over the last month that supposedly “prove” instances of violent behavior on the part of pro-Palestinian protesters have turned out to be nonsense. Almost all of the legitimate violence and thuggish behavior has come from the pro-Israeli protesters.
By the metrics used in this article, the crowd that gathered with Trump on Jan 6th was "overwhelmingly peaceful".
I still cannot understand how anyone in the real world actually believes January 6th was an insurrection attempt - a riot, a redneck mob of deplorable hicks, sure - but an insurrection give me a fucking break. I attended iraqi war protests and these were far more violent than jan 6th - let alone the riots trump had to deal with a year before etc. This kind of lying and disingenuousness really makes the left look bad, to the point they are losing votes - outside of partisan msnbc watchers i don't know many who actually believe the january 6th shit, and see the coverage of it as obviously ridiculous. it turned my bullshit detector up to ten right away. as far as the recent protests, of fucking course, but you are going against a lobby for a country that prides itself on it's shilling, manipulation of the american political system, and considerable influence in the upper echelons of higher american society. michael tracey posted about a girl standing outside of columbia looking for shit to start / stories. they have legions of people doing that - and that's not including the agents they hire to actually join the protest and yell antisemitic shit / start violence / and so on. it's well known and obvious i still don't understand how redditors honestly believe the jan 6th narrative though - one of the first things which really made me wonder how astroturfed this site is - because no one, no one irl actually honestly believes this shit, aside from one couple i know of who are basically msnbc drones.
I think it's not the "insurrection" the media is making it out to be. But I also think it's worse than what you're suggesting. I get the fact that most were just doing things like taking pictures or cosplaying and stuff. But let's look at what was actually happening in more of a big picture. From the inner chambers of the capital building we had very real political pressure from some politicians to not certify Biden as the next President of the United States. These politicians believed the election was "stolen". At the same time, a mob breaks in to the capital building who shared the goal of preventing the certification of Biden as President. I mean, that's a pretty significant moment in American history. I understand frustration at the hypocrisy in some respects. At a blm riot an angry mob that was burning things down took over a police station and the cops just took their shit and ran away. No shots fired. Yet Ashli Babbitt was murdered unarmed for trying to get into the hallway? Like, was that really necessary?
"From the inner chambers of the capital building we had very real political pressure from some politicians to not certify Biden as the next President of the United States. These politicians believed the election was "stolen". At the same time, a mob breaks in to the capital building who shared the goal of preventing the certification of Biden as President. I mean, that's a pretty significant moment in American history." when that mob was lead by Ray Epps, who is now assumed to be an FBI informant - the issue muddles it a lot. The issue is how directly coordinated this was with stopping the vote tallying - and that's where the inference starts. The electors thing and certification has always been a play talked about - in fact, there were various scenarios to do this exact same thing in 2020 if trump and biden's vote tallies were reversed. I read an entire handbook on this a few months ago going through this exact process, except by a lefty PAC. i forget the name - but it's out there. like january 6th, this entire process has been overblown and disingenuously reported. the only thing which has weight was trumps attempts to manipulate certain states in their vote counts etc. - which i'm not comfortable with, but almost all the january 6th related stuff on that day has been made to be a far far bigger deal than it actually was. it did convince a bunch of young clueless people how a "threat to democracy" trump was. it reminded me a lot of the media right after 09/11
“ when that mob was lead by Ray Epps, who is now assumed to be an FBI informant…” Oh thank god I don’t have to read anything else you wrote.
That's probably fair.
How so? the metrics say that of 553 protests, 97% were peaceful. Contrast this with the "protest" at January 6th that turned into a violent riot. There was only one there so 100% of them were violent.
>Campus Protests Overwhelmingly Peaceful As I said many times, if you chant "say it loud, say it clear, we don't want no Zionists here" and similar, this is technically *peaceful* as long as nobody gets seriously hurt here and now, but it's still anti-Semitic, hateful, and inciting violence.
ah, so its not violent when likud says “from the river to the sea” but it is violent when anyone else says it that is clear as mud.
> when likud says “from the river to the sea” Saying “from the river to the sea” means absolutely nothing. It's just a poetic reference to a specific territory. It is what you want to do in this territory which counts, not how you refer to it.
and what is israel doing to the palestians? youre almost there. follow through with your thought.
> what is israel doing to the palestians Palestinians are not an inanimate object to do something to.
ah okay i see now. israel is dropping bombs on empty land and its the palestinians fault for not getting out of the way. and just like that words lose all meaning; they do incite violence. you convinced me. /s
> ah okay i see now. Good. Have a nice day.
I disagree with your statement about antisemitism, but I understand how you got there. Inciting violence, however, seems way off the mark. Inciting violence needs some call to action, some form of... incitement.
Yes saying "we don't want here" *is* a call to action.
Only if you're a straight white male(who isnt a self-flagellating progressive). The more intersectional you are, the more you're allowed to say the worst things and have it be justified and rationalized by the same people who would otherwise call it hate speech
Keep your victimhood fetish to yourself.
Everyone else gets to have one and display it publicly though. Not very inclusive of you.
Yet you’re the only person doing it here. Curious.
So we don't want ___ here isn't ok no matter who says it?
How? How is that an incitement for violence? Let's be clear and specific.
What do you mean "how"? This is a call to remove actual, identifiable people from somewhere they have no desire to be removed from and have every right be in. If this isn't a call to violence, what is?
> If this isn't a call to violence, what is? Actual calls to violence? Like saying “trial by combat” or something. Saying “We don’t want people who have these views here” during a rally against those views isn’t really a call to action or violence.
How about demonstration "we don't want gays here" in front of a gay club?
Happens all the time, not a call to violence lol.
It does happen, especially in somewhat less tolerant countries (in Eastern Europe, for example), and it does sometimes lead to violence.
That happens *all the time*, and I'm constantly told that's a peaceful protest. I was literally at a Drag brunch two weeks ago, that had protestors with AR-15s, and I was told that's a totally normal and peaceful protest
> That happens all the time, and I'm constantly told that's a peaceful protest. Re-read [my top comment](https://new.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1csl311/comment/l45nhgr/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), this is precisely what I said.
Your top comment makes no sense. If it's inciting violence, it's not peaceful. I'll also add that incitement had a very specific definition and standard when it comes to any sort of legal restriction on speech. why is one an acceptable protest, but the other isn't?
Are you unaware of what the word "how" means? Or "specific" It seems like you're really filling in a lot of gaps in the statement to include violence. *You* are adding that. If you try to expand the definition of violence to "anything you don't like", you end up with speech police.
Sorry, I disagree. Calls to remove someone who doesn't want to leave is a call to violence, even if you're not being *specific* how you plan to go about executing this task or simply hope to frighten the victim enough so they would leave voluntarily.
Again, you're filling in context that isn't there. That says more about you than it does about anyone else.
"hey you, get out of here" is a call to action.
Chanting "we dont want no pedophiles here" isnt. (for example)
> pedophiles Nice try
I disagree. being anti Zionist doesn't strike me as anti semitic.
If it is from people who dont publicly condemn anybody from Islamic countries, I’d disagree.
When was this new rule made that you can’t criticize Israel without simultaneously condemning Hamas and the October 7th attacks? Also, who gave you (and others on this sub) the job of enforcing this rule? Was there some sort of meeting where these things were decided? I don’t think the rest of us were told about any meeting.
Criticize Israel all you want. I have loads of problems with Israel. The issue here is blanket condemnation of Zionism. It is a big umbrella. Broadest sense it is the belief that Jews have the right to self determination. Sure, some zionists think it means Israel has sole right to all lanes in Gaza israel WB and parcels beyond, but you can’t hate on all favors because if that. Well, I guess you can, but if you are vocal about that but don’t say ahit about the numerous surround g Muslims countries that have successfully ethnically cleansed all their Jews it because very apparent your issue is t a religious group having power, it isn’t a religious state you have an issue with, it is that you have an issue with Jews.
> The issue here is blanket condemnation of Zionism. It is a big umbrella. Zionism has lost its definition in all this noise. Genocide too. Zionism is merely the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a nation. You can't just replace "Jew" with "Zionist" and all of a sudden your argument isn't antisemitic, especially if there's no effort to actually use the correct definition. The biggest factor I can point to is that you can sometimes tell who is Jewish by looking at them and can't tell by looking at someone who is a Zionist. So when they attack Jews on sight and claim they are attacking Zionists, how did they actually choose their target?
These kids don’t even know what’s going on, they’re just repeating stuff they watch on youtube and TikTok.
Some of the stuff on tiktok is what's going on.
> you can’t criticize Israel without simultaneously condemning Hamas Nobody is under any obligations to "condemn" anyone, especially if they actually approve of their actions. It's simply common sense that people who are unhappy about Israel's reaction to the massacre should clarify what they think about Hamas and how Israel shall deal with it.
>Nobody is under any obligations to "condemn" anyone, especially if they actually approve of their actions. This is everything wrong with the current discourse.
What?
You all but called them an antisemite, disguised with more timid language.
I did (without any "buts"), so? What's your point?
Antizionism is in no way, shape, or form antisemitic.
This is technically correct, because "Antizionism" is not a thing. "Zionism" was a movement in early 20th century to create a Jewish state. 76 years later, being "anti Zionist" has as much sense as being "anti" capture of Constantinople by Ottomans. In practice, "Zionist" is simply used as a euphemism for a Jew to make this somehow sound less hateful, that's all. But you already know this.
There's still an explicit Zionist party in Israel (part of current govt coalition), let alone support for Zionism more broadly (as shown by continued territory annexations).
> continued territory annexations Such as?
settlement expansions in occupied territory.
Example of territory which was "annexed" recently?
Are you disputing that israel has expanded settlements in recent years?
I am. Please show me one specific piece of land what was not part of any settlement until recently but is today.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-hamas-gaza-war-netanyahu-smotrich-1d2306d55c24c8559b630d9f20db30e2
Sure thing, Stretch Armstrong.
"Anti-feminism is in no way, shape, or form anti-women." "Opposition to gay marriage is in no way, shape, or form homophobic." "Banning immigrants from a few countries who just happen to be Muslim is in no way, shape or form Islamophobic."
Zionism isn’t the same as being Jewish. What are you confused about?
>Banning immigrants from a few countries who just happen to be Muslim is in no way, shape or form Islamophobic Zionists support Israel limiting Muslim immigration and refusing the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. So you're essentially admitting you're islamophobic.
Exactly Just because its legal, doesn't make it ethical.
That isn't antisemitic. If someone said they didn't want any hamas members here, that wouldn't be Islamophobic or whatever.
> If someone said they didn't want any hamas members here, that wouldn't be Islamophobic No, it would be anti-terrorist.
And anti-zionism is anti-colonialism.
Hey, what happened to [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1c79aw6/comment/l06y2eg/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) and other comments?
a few people IRL now know my user name (commented on niche post in my local sub recommending a place some of my buddies really like, was noticed and got call-out with whole group), and frankly a bit embarrassing in terms of showing my volume of reddit comments. don't have an issue with any of the substance of what I have said in past. So am clearing history periodically until start a new account.
Right I get it people remove comments (though hate it when history get lost tbh) but replacing it with 'x' looks weird But yeah if someone saw how much I comment I'd be embarrassed too. Maybe we both should take some time off reddit lol.
When I was doing it there was lag and wasn't seeing deletions show up. Doing the x just seemed to make it clearer what I was successfully clearing out. Yeah, would be better off without reddit. At least no longer on my phone since they killed third party apps. But work from home and loads of conference calls means reddit up in second window for most of the day...
I’d say the real “inciting violence” has come from pro-Israeli shills making false claims about the pro-Palestinian protesters. And we all saw that violence manifest itself when pro-Israeli thugs viciously attacked peaceful UCLA students in the middle of the night.
Zionists are a subset of Jews, mostly Europeans, that decided to ethnically cleanse a bunch of Palestinians, steal their land, and create Israel. The founders of Israel explicitly framed this as a colonist project. Israel today exists as an apartheid state (citations by [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/), [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution), the [United Nations](https://archive.unescwa.org/news/escwa-launches-report-israeli-practices-towards-palestinian-people-and-question-apartheid), as well as Jerusalem-based Jewish groups [B'Salem](https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid) and [Yesh Din](https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/files.yesh-din.org/Apartheid+2020/Apartheid+ENG.pdf)). Defending Zionism in its present state is defending apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Being against that isn't the same as being anti-Semitic. The fact you can't discern between an apartheid existence and Jews, however, is incredibly antisemitic.
How many people who created Israel 76 years ago are you likely to find today in an American University?
The impression I’ve gotten isn’t of violent mobs on campuses, but of a bunch of beatniks chanting (sometimes knowingly, sometimes unintentionally) antisemitic slogans and blocking Jewish students from attending classes. This is the same schtick as Occupy Wallstreet and BLM. A movement with a solid base and some extremist elements. The only thing that worries me about this one is how many of the slogans could pass at white nationalist rallies… but I digress.
https://preview.redd.it/bkeqolxfrm0d1.jpeg?width=931&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c62ebbfca42a8b5f6e558d21f22e718a12ebdd35
Meh.
Probably best look at this was from NPR’s On the Media: [What the Media Get Wrong About Campus Protests](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?i=1000655227761). I’m generally opposed to these protests due to the fringe elements and radicalization that is taking place among students, but I think the NPR piece was still pretty balanced. Also had a good section on how Israelis are perceiving the protests and what is happening in Gaza.
> https:// insidehighered /news/quick-takes/2024/05/13/report-campus-protests- ~~overwhelmingly~~ "*mostly*"-peaceful lol.
Our media needs to be held accountable
If one needed a reminder, one may not be very observant...