'Horrific' violence at UCLA after counter-protesters attack pro-Palestinian camp

News@lemmy.world – 533 points – 7 months ago

'Horrific' violence at UCLA after counter-protesters attack pro-Palestinian camp

Violence erupted at the University of California, Los Angeles after pro-Israeli counter-demonstrators attacked a pro-Palestinian campus encampment. Bubbling tensions on the campus boiled over following the alleged breach of a "buffer zone" between the rival groups.

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

But we mustn't have evil guns!! The police will protect us, I'm certain of it!

Liberals will never, ever prevail against the fascists unless they pull their collective head out of their collective ass. News flash kids: The fascists are perfectly willing to use violence. And they know you are not.

So let me make sure I understand your point: the pro-Palestinian protestors should have opened fire and killed the counter-protestors?

What's wrong with self-defense?

Yeah, what's wrong with killing people? As long as you have an excuse that's good enough for you, you should always be able to kill as many people as you can. /s

It's going to happen eventually. Regardless of what the current protested issue is. It's probably a natural inevitable next step. Hope things unfuck themselves before that though.

I also find it very sad that it is turning sour but I find comfort in the fact that most of the fascist thugs I've seen are cowards who only find the courage to be violent in overwhelming force and numbers imbalances. Peaceful students who are known to not own guns are easy targets.

Nobody was arguing against self defense

A rhetorical question implying shooting bands of thugs attacking a peaceful protest is somehow far fetched is eerily similar to arguing against self defense

Straw man

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Just asking questions

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

Jeez, it's almost like there's a difference between self defense using fists when attacked by fists versus gunning down an unarmed group of people. Yeah, if you are one person ganged up on by a bunch of people, maybe MAYBE self defense using a gun is justified (unless you started the fight, then that's on you), but arguing that it was justified in this case is bloodthirsty and sick.

News Flash: it’s possible to want sensible gun control laws AND meaningful police reform. Most of us are capable of holding more the one thought in our head, capable of setting more than one goal, and that doesn’t make us idiots or hypocrites. Validating their violence with more violence would make us hypocrites (and idiots) and is not the only means of achieving our goals.

Edit: are you seriously suggesting that the protesters should be armed?! or is this just an attempt to muddy the waters by bringing up a conversation about gun control?

Guns being present would have only resulted in many MANY deaths. That’s what you want?

I have seen a lot of shalafi's comments in the past and I think the answer to that question is "yes."

Nah. You have to do it right, that's all. Everyone mudt show up in plate armor open carrying fighting rifles. This is what the right has done, and more importantly it also has worked for the left (see: protecting drag queens from right wing protests). You don't instigate shit. Just stand there. If you're heavily armed, out in the open, and peaceful, the cops and counter protests can't make up an excuse to start shit, and they are extremely unmotivated to do so.

I want people to use their right to defend themselves instead of licking boots.

If it's the attackers, then yeah, thats the point. Guns are a deterrent.

Guns are NOT a deterrent. They're an escalation and most often an unnecessary one.

Nuclear weapons are an escalation, an effective one at that.

2 more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing

What a deterrent

2 more...

This is an uninstructive conversation. We do not need this sort of shit stirring about this topic because it is important.

Do not show up to a protest with a gun either alone or unannounced. Thats just Rittenhouse behaviour. Be a part of a militia or with some group, and contact the event organizers before arriving. They'll probably tell your group to wait in a near by location and to be called when needed.

Also getting beat up is the point of these protests. Columbia unreasonably responded with violence against their own students and faculty. It was a total blunder that they made habitually. Making them fascists drop their masks for everyone to see is the goal here.

Based

Ask Mark Hughes about what happens when you show up armed to a protest.

What would have the police and the media done after that?

Michael Reinoehl killed a fash, then the police executed him in a suburban neighborhood. There's no scenario where a leftwing person kills a fascist in self defense and their police buddies say it was a good shooting.

2 more...