|
For all the times, the US has brought up China's government suppressing tiananmen square, this is rather hypocritical of the US. I'm told these memes came from the Chinese internet. We deserve to be lampooned by them.  We're not so different from China in that sense. China also has a national interest. They also have a political class. That political class has an interest in suppressing dissent which could grow and replace them. Tiananmen was them cleaning house of dissenters like Biden is now. We fundamentally lose our free speech rights when we need them the most. Once the emergency is "handled" there might be an apology but the political class endures. That means we have no free speech rights. If free speech rights can be suspended during an "emergency," and the emergency is "a PR problem for the political class," then we have no free speech rights. No one really needs Free speech rights for things that aren't controversial or for things that are within the spectrum of tolerated opinion, like whether you're going to vote for Democrats or Republicans. When you disagree with a bipartisan consensus though you're in trouble. I think of Eugene Debs who was put in prison for his opposition to World War I and conscription and running for president as a socialist. Where was the first amendment then? You can say that was a long time ago but if interpretations can change we don't have is as a right. If all it takes is a Court ruling for you to no longer have a right to free speech then what you have is a temporary, revocable, permission to speak You can say it was an emergency with World War I but if we can't dissent in times of crisis and emergency then we can't dissent because that's when you need to dissent the most. I think everyone including organizations and governments should be judged by who they are in the dark. When the pressure is high and no one is watching and no one can stop you, that's where your morality really is. Apologies long after the fact after the situation has gone favorably for the ruling class mean nothing. It means nothing that we aren't doing Hollywood blacklists anymore. It means nothing that the government apologized for internment camps. They still got to eat their cake. Who can even apologize to the dead? The ones who were killed by an oppressive government? They can be sorry later. They could be sorry for slavery, gaza, the trail of tears. The victim's silence is your answer for how much it means. When it comes to slavery and the trail of tears, the real test is whether or not we would do it again. Our goods come from sweatshops and we are doing genocide in Gaza. We have learned nothing and have not changed at all. Apologies mean nothing.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
hello OP what are we supposed to be discussing and/or debating in your thread? I agree that stomping protests under cop boots while half the population gleefully licks the shoe polish is bad, and that US colleges, cities, states, and presidents should not do that. this is not really a new thing or uniquely bad thing though? for a direct comparison, try Kent State. American classroom history is extremely revisionist about Kent State. at the time almost everyone blamed the protestors and a lot of people lusted for more blood. pigs have more and more lethal toys but not a lot has changed! https://bsky.app/profile/kevinmkruse.bsky.social/post/3kquyzbbdpk2l  https://twitter.com/francisxwolf/status/1783590123763798127
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 12:21
|
|
|
Senate Cum Dump posted:but not a lot has changed! OP's better understanding that we're a fascist oligarchy and not an egalitarian democracy... that's a change. Every additional person who breaks free from our national propaganda is a win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:09
|
|
|
Zoeb posted:For all the times, the US has brought up China's government suppressing tiananmen square, this is rather hypocritical of the US. I'm told these memes came from the Chinese internet. We deserve to be lampooned by them. The reason Tiananmen Square has been infamous for decades is because the military took to the streets in full force, with soldiers wielding real guns and firing live ammunition into crowds, while tanks were used to spearhead charges through barricades set up by the protesters. Somewhere between several hundred and several thousand unarmed civilians were killed, depending on who's counting. In the aftermath, more than a thousand people were arrested, with some of them spending decades in prison; the last Tiananmen-related prisoner wasn't released from prison until 2016. Moreover, the government followed it up with large-scale political purges, and any officials who were thought to be sympathetic to the protesters' cause or ideology were expelled from office, with some even facing further consequences such as years in prison. Similarly, reporters who expressed sympathy with the protesters or their cause were summarily fired, and some were imprisoned. To this day, the subject of the Tiananmen Square massacres is highly censored in China, and commemorating or memorializing the event is largely banned. You can start comparing Tiananmen Square to American campus protests when American campus protesters start getting run over by tanks, while reporters and politicians who express sympathy or agreement for their cause are sent to prison for "subversion of the state".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 01:53
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:OP's better understanding that we're a fascist oligarchy and not an egalitarian democracy... that's a change. Every additional person who breaks free from our national propaganda is a win. I mean if someone is comparing a social platform demanding it change ownership or that the student protests are equal to tiananmen then there certainly is some propaganda at work here that is for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I mean if someone is comparing a social platform demanding it change ownership or that the student protests are equal to tiananmen then there certainly is some propaganda at work here that is for sure. American leftists mostly want to feel like oppressed revolutionaries, not actually fight oppression or make revolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 06:52
|
|
|
Both things can be poo poo, but the protester being arrested without what looks like any injury vs being run over by tanks is so many orders of magnitude more poo poo that it makes the comparison laughable. Also extra laughable to put this blame on Biden's feet vs Greg Abbot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 07:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason Tiananmen Square has been infamous for decades is because the military took to the streets in full force, with soldiers wielding real guns and firing live ammunition into crowds, while tanks were used to spearhead charges through barricades set up by the protesters. Somewhere between several hundred and several thousand unarmed civilians were killed, depending on who's counting. Obviously the Chinese Communist Party went way harder on the protestors than the Americans are on their protestors but there are still attempts at coercively stifling dissent and free speech and I find that more than a little hypocritical for the land of the free considering we criticize China for not having free speech. There is a media bias, that media bias is fed by government institutions withholding access, police are violently crushing the protestors even if they are not putting them to death and protestors are being threatened with being expelled or made unemployable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Zoeb posted:Obviously the Chinese Communist Party went way harder on the protestors than the Americans are on their protestors but I'm going to go ahead and say that at this precise moment we see the most load-bearing "but" possible in *any* such argument
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
Hey Zoeb it's a terrible situation and I'm very much sympathetic to the pro-palestinian message as well as just as aghast at the media bias but also I think you're being overly emotional and exaggerating as well. People genuinely don't seem to understand that there is massive cultural and institutional support for Israel in America and it's exactly why I always shake my head when someone tries to imply it's somehow threatening Biden's re-election. This isn't me defending that. I'm on the side of the protesters. But the real world isn't an information silo like Something Awful, reddit, etc. Your normal person is going to think something like "Support for Palestine? Isn't that anti-semitic against Israel? Why does this person hate Israel??" because they don't have a clue about what Israel has been doing for years nor do they know about settlers and so on and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 21:51
|
|
|
Four dead in O-hi-o!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 22:00
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Four dead in O-hi-o!!! We can replay another CSNY song when the DNC is in Chicago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:We can replay another CSNY song when the DNC is in Chicago. Groper and the Damage Done?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:when the DNC is in Chicago 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Speaking as a professor, protests vary widely in terms of how disruptive they are to the day-to-day functioning of a university. Most universities around the country have been very tolerant of protests that are not highly disruptive. It is only when protestors have prevented students and faculty from accessing the spaces where research and learning take place that punishment has been meted out. The president of the University of Chicago put out a statement on these issues that I largely agree with that clarifies this distinction:quote:Dear Members of the University Community, Just a few hours ago, a group of students established an encampment on the Main Quad as a form of protest. This particular tactic is now in widespread use at universities across the country. At some, encampments have been forcibly removed, with police arresting students and faculty in chaotic scenes that are disturbing. At others, encampments have persisted, despite attempts to shut them down with force. In some cases, encampments have resulted in major disruptions to learning and the activities of the university community. Some people believe protesters ought to have the right to disrupt other peoples' lives to get their messages out. I disagree. If you think breaking the rules and preventing people from going about their lives is the best way to get your message heard, I get where you are coming from. But you shouldn't expect to have the right to do so without being punished. If taking the punishment is worth it to you, that's your decision. But disrupting other peoples' lives is not part of the right to free speech, and largely I think universities have actually done fairly well in drawing that distinction. Oakland Martini fucked around with this message at 16:46 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
I find that a rather unconvincing attempt to make the punishment seem like some sort of natural occurence rather than a conscious decision by the people meting it out, that you agree with and encourage. It doesn't have to happen, it happens because people want it to happen. If you find the police loving people up disturbing then you don't have to do it. If you want them to do it then that's entirely on you. You can't have it both ways. I also really do not think that "the day to day functioning of a university" is something so sacred as to merit the application of any amount of force to defend.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:Speaking as a professor, protests vary widely in terms of how disruptive they are to the day-to-day functioning of a university. Most universities around the country have been very tolerant of protests that are not highly disruptive. It is only when protestors have prevented students and faculty from accessing the spaces where research and learning take place that punishment has been meted out. The president of the University of Chicago put out a statement on these issues that I largely agree with that clarifies this distinction: I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the White moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
Look it’s one thing for our endowment to directly fund the target assassination of professors and demolition of universities in Gaza but by god if these uppity college students camp on the quad to do anything about they have NO RIGHT, no right! “Very tolerant” by sending in the cops to crack skulls and mass expulsions over mere speech. You’re dishonest as gently caress or willfully ignorant. Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 16:36 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Plenty of historical protests that I would sincerely hope you would think were morally justified, were also disruptive to people's lives. If you think that disruption merits retaliation by the authorities simply because it is not the proper way to do it, then you are necessarily also taking the posiition that the historical retaliation against things like the civil rights movement were morally correct.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
Butter Activities posted:I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the White moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice. Protesting is perfectly acceptable, but sitting in a white person's seat on the bus is incredibly disruptive and we have no choice but to punish such behavior. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Plenty of historical protests that I would sincerely hope you would think were morally justified, were also disruptive to people's lives. If you think that disruption merits retaliation by the authorities simply because it is not the proper way to do it, then you are necessarily also taking the posiition that the historical retaliation against things like the civil rights movement were morally correct. No, it’s different this time because I, personally, feel inconvenienced and uncomfortable
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Plenty of historical protests that I would sincerely hope you would think were morally justified, were also disruptive to people's lives. If you think that disruption merits retaliation by the authorities simply because it is not the proper way to do it, then you are necessarily also taking the posiition that the historical retaliation against things like the civil rights movement were morally correct. How do we decide which protests are "morally righteous" and which are not? As institutions, universities ought to remain neutral about contentious political issues (this is the main thrust of the Chicago Principles/Kelvin Report, which I strongly agree with). They should not be asked to take stands on which political causes are "morally righteous" and which are not. Allowing laws and university rules to be broken without punishment when these actions are taken in pursuit of causes in some cases but not others simply does not work. If your cause is just, do what you think is right and accept whatever punishments you are given in response. End of story, especially in today's world where you you can easily drum up a few hundred K in gofundme donations by going viral on social media to help mitigate the cost of these punishments.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
If people would have just stayed in the crosswalks the tanks could have passed by without any issues.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
Problem here is simple. Centrists are extremely against any form of disruption to the status quo/decorum, and are legally (not morally) justified on crackdowns as they wrote the laws to make it legal to crackdown on "disruptive" protests. Too many voters are also centrists, so they may actually support crackdowns, regardless of legality or morality! Also, what is the objective of the campus protests? It may not be possible to convince the center to stop supporting Israel's genocidal actions as I fear they may be supported by a slight majority of voters, especially older voters (loving boomers!). If there is public support for undemocratic actions, how exactly will protests stop them?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
The whole point of being disruptive is to drawn attention to the issue you are protesting about, doing it peacefully in a free speech zone doesn't really get anyone to notice your cause.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
And if the attention drawn to the cause is emboldens support for the opposite stance, what is to be done?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:How do we decide which protests are "morally righteous" and which are not? As institutions, universities ought to remain neutral about contentious political issues (this is the main thrust of the Chicago Principles/Kelvin Report, which I strongly agree with). They should not be asked to take stands on which political causes are "morally righteous" and which are not. Allowing laws and university rules to be broken without punishment when these actions are taken in pursuit of causes in some cases but not others simply does not work. If your cause is just, do what you think is right and accept whatever punishments you are given in response. End of story, especially in today's world where you you can easily drum up a few hundred K in gofundme donations by going viral on social media to help mitigate the cost of these punishments. Unfortunately, this logic basically declares all protest as illegal.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:How do we decide which protests are "morally righteous" and which are not? As institutions, universities ought to remain neutral about contentious political issues (this is the main thrust of the Chicago Principles/Kelvin Report, which I strongly agree with). They should not be asked to take stands on which political causes are "morally righteous" and which are not. Allowing laws and university rules to be broken without punishment when these actions are taken in pursuit of causes in some cases but not others simply does not work. If your cause is just, do what you think is right and accept whatever punishments you are given in response. End of story, especially in today's world where you you can easily drum up a few hundred K in gofundme donations by going viral on social media to help mitigate the cost of these punishments. oh good I was worried that college endowments were funding a genocide and doing study abroad in apartheid states non-neutrally. Now that I know they’re doing it neutrally I condem the protesters, who can just make a go fund me! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
RC01214 posted:And if the attention drawn to the cause is emboldens support for the opposite stance, what is to be done? It's a risk you have to take, being afraid to speak up for the oppressed because it might offend or embolden people who hate them is exactly how change never happens.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:How do we decide which protests are "morally righteous" and which are not? As institutions, universities ought to remain neutral about contentious political issues (this is the main thrust of the Chicago Principles/Kelvin Report, which I strongly agree with). They should not be asked to take stands on which political causes are "morally righteous" and which are not. Allowing laws and university rules to be broken without punishment when these actions are taken in pursuit of causes in some cases but not others simply does not work. If your cause is just, do what you think is right and accept whatever punishments you are given in response. End of story, especially in today's world where you you can easily drum up a few hundred K in gofundme donations by going viral on social media to help mitigate the cost of these punishments. With your brain... What you are arguing is that institutions of learning and the people in charge of them do not have any moral responsibility whatsoever, that they should be somehow utterly unconcerned with whether or not their actions make the world a better place or not, and submit themselves unthinkingly to the law of the land. In which case what do you suppose the point of an institute of learning is? An overpriced training program? Do you teach your students to behave this way? If you are supposing to spend your time shaping the minds of the youth who will inherit the world tomorrow, I would loving well hope that you would consider it your responsibility to instill in them a desire for justice and the ability to discern right and wrong in their actions and in the world at large. Especially if you are teaching them with the hope that they will go on to have the skills and knowledge that will put them in positions of leadership. If your students come out of your classes beliving that they do not have any moral duty, and should abstain from moral reasoning because that is for somebody else to do, but with the technical knowledge required to do things like develop drugs, software, weapons, works of engineering. What you have created in that instance is a danger to society.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:07
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:How do we decide which protests are "morally righteous" and which are not? As institutions, universities ought to remain neutral about contentious political issues (this is the main thrust of the Chicago Principles/Kelvin Report, which I strongly agree with). They should not be asked to take stands on which political causes are "morally righteous" and which are not. Allowing laws and university rules to be broken without punishment when these actions are taken in pursuit of causes in some cases but not others simply does not work. If your cause is just, do what you think is right and accept whatever punishments you are given in response. End of story, especially in today's world where you you can easily drum up a few hundred K in gofundme donations by going viral on social media to help mitigate the cost of these punishments. In this case, it’s pretty simple; protesting against a genocide the schools are complicit in is morally righteous because genocide is bad
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:07
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The whole point of being disruptive is to drawn attention to the issue you are protesting about, doing it peacefully in a free speech zone doesn't really get anyone to notice your cause. Being injured by authorities as they physically force you to end the disruption also draws attention to the issue you're protesting about. And historically, it tends to be a particularly effective method of drawing attention to it, at least under the right circumstances.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Being injured by authorities as they physically force you to end the disruption also draws attention to the issue you're protesting about. And historically, it tends to be a particularly effective method of drawing attention to it, at least under the right circumstances. Yeah I thought about mentioning that, it's a weird thing for me like having the police brutally crush you probably has some sort of boost to the message but I wouldn't wish that on anyone or think anyone should have to go out and protest with that being the expectation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:It's a risk you have to take, being afraid to speak up for the oppressed because it might offend or embolden people who hate them is exactly how change never happens. The whole “well you have to accept the consequences if you protest” is white noise from centrists like our wise professor here, the students already know this because they are already facing consequences that, despite our learned friends claim, cannot easily be fixed with a go fund me. It’s a way to conflate the reasonable expectation of consequences making a stand on something the powers that be don’t like with justification for those consequences while being able pretend one’s own incoherent belief that boils down it “it’s okay for people to suffer consequences for protesting genocide” but able to avoid confronting their own moral cowardice.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Also if you believe that following the law is "remaining neutral" on something then I don't even know where to begin. The law is a position someone else has taken, you are not refraining from moral judgement you are adhering to somebody else's moral judgement, and doing that does not absolve you of the impact of that judgement. I can only assume you do not teach history because that is a staggeringly ignorant position to take.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Being injured by authorities as they physically force you to end the disruption also draws attention to the issue you're protesting about. And historically, it tends to be a particularly effective method of drawing attention to it, at least under the right circumstances. What would be an example of mass protests that actually lead to meaningful change? (Not including striking, which has more leverage over government revenue) I sometimes get the feeling that the stuff we learned in school in Canada about Vietnam, MLK and Ghandi was highly misleading as to the effectiveness of protesting; authorities had ulterior motives and other, violent threats that contributed to their capitulation on these 3 major issues. I am almost certainly biased as in China, where my family is from, the most major protests like May 4th Movement, 100 Flowers Movement (that wasnt exactly a protest though) and Tiananmen all got suppressed by government, with major policy shifts determined either internally by the Qing, the KMT, and the CCP, or by "the barrel of a gun", as during the Nanchang Uprising, Yuan Shikai's coup, the KMT Northern Expedition, Chiang Kai-shek's purge of the Communists, and the Communist overthrow of the KMT. RC01214 fucked around with this message at 17:32 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
Butter Activities posted:The whole “well you have to accept the consequences if you protest” is white noise from centrists like our wise professor here, the students already know this because they are already facing consequences that, despite our learned friends claim, cannot easily be fixed with a go fund me.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
"Forcibly dragging a significant number of people out of a building against their will" is, by nature, something that can't exactly be done gently. If telling the protesters to leave doesn't work, and the protesters refuse to obediently be gently ushered out, then the only way that can really escalate from there is to physically forcing the crowd to disperse through discomfort (tear gas, etc) or physical force, and it's pretty much impossible to do that bloodlessly against more than a few people. When protesters act in a sufficiently disruptive way (such as occupying an office building or blocking streets), there's only really three main categories of response that are possible:
Of course, experienced activists know that (though students may not), and take it into account when choosing what kind of tactics to use and how disruptive to be. When they occupy something where option 2 is unlikely to be acceptable to authorities, they're doing so knowing full well that the authorities will likely respond with either option 1 or option 3. And as a general rule of thumb, if relations between the protesters and the authorities are amicable enough that option 1 seems like it's seriously on the table, then the protesters usually aren't mad enough to force a confrontation like this. As such, option 3 is likely. Why go forward with something that's likely to lead to a police response? Because under the right circumstances and with the right tactics, getting injured by authorities can be a very effective way of drawing people's attention to an issue. If there's a significant portion of the population that doesn't have strong feelings on their issue, then seeing non-violent protesters being bloodied and dragged off by the police can generate sympathy for the protesters' cause and draw the fence-sitters to their side. On the other hand, if the protest movement is sufficiently large and persistent despite the police suppression, then the authorities might begin to fear that the movement can't easily be suppressed and that some concessions must be made to it, especially if the movement seems especially prone to disruption or violence. In some cases, both effects can happen at the same time, as in the civil rights movement. RC01214 posted:I don't know, only deaths actually seem to draw enough moral outrage in the past, with any other injuries being waved off. It's not usually enough to singlehandedly change things, but it's often extremely effective in building support for the movement. The Children's March in Birmingham, where a notoriously racist sheriff arrested more than a thousand students and then started attacking the rest with firehoses and police dogs, drew global attention and made segregation an issue that politicians across the country could no longer afford to ignore. At the same time, the brutality galvanized more and more local protesters to come out in support of the kids, putting heavy pressure both on the police department's ability to manage the situation and on local civil rights leaders' ability to keep things nonviolent. That generated a ton of local anger that set the stage for a major riot a few days later, and the widespread attention from the brutality a few days earlier meant that national politicians were watching the situation in Birmingham quite closely and got thoroughly spooked by the scale of the riot.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Forcibly dragging a significant number of people out of a building against their will" is, by nature, something that can't exactly be done gently. If telling the protesters to leave doesn't work, and the protesters refuse to obediently be gently ushered out, then the only way that can really escalate from there is to physically forcing the crowd to disperse through discomfort (tear gas, etc) or physical force, and it's pretty much impossible to do that bloodlessly against more than a few people. I am not sure local protesters are joining these protests in numbers, but that would be hard to tell. Also the massive expansion and militarization of police since then might make it impossible to put enough pressure on them to pull back or overstretch, as they now have enough resources to supress much largeer groups of people than in the 60s, although I am probably misunderstanding your point here.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:I largely agree with that clarifies this distinction: Our esteemed professor seems to agree that honoring people murdered by the IDF is "offensive to many" and that the student camps etymological roots confer a militaristic threat of force. However, actual force by cops and expulsion/eviction from student housing is presumably something that just needs gofundme. I love the goodness of the faith.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 18:21
|
|