Go ahead, downvote because you’re mad that I’m right.
Upvoted because I'm happy you're right. Biden will lose to the orange criminal if he doesn't stand up and stop money and weapons to Israel. America is fucked if it keeps supporting Israel.
I think you're overestimating how many voters are deeply against Israel's assault on Palestine, while also underestimating the ability of those virtuous people to understand the landslide of harmful outcomes that would come with another trump presidency.
Trump won without the popular vote. He won Michigan by ~10,000 votes in 2016. I'm not the one who decided this system, but this system doesn't give a shit about the majority. It doesn't take much to sway the balance.
Yeah but the Dems will always lose without the majority
Why is there a "but" in your statement? You're effectively agreeing with my sentiment. The Democrats will indeed always lose without the majority.
Because I misunderstood where you were going with it
Well some protests. Did anything really happen at all after the BLM protests? Cops are still able to get away with murder and have very little oversight.
The BLM protests did work, they exposed that the US is a violent police state where voting doesn’t actually do anything to change whether we live in a violent police state because both the Republicans and centrist Democrats will collaborate as much as needed to betray their voters in order to sustain the system of policing and prisons.
The fact that in the wake of George Floyd a lot of cities and municipalities actually went more draconian with their policing laws in backlash is only an indicator of a failure of the BLM protests if you don’t look closer, step closer and you see the truth is far scarier, the BLM protests did massively change the psyche of America, it’s just that actually has no effect upon policy making because democracy is so broken in the US to the extreme point where many city governments chose to actively do their opposite of the will of the people as a show of force and a chilling warning to leftists.
In particular, I witnessed ACAB go from something that when I would say it would be nearly impossible to defend to many people, to something almost everyone (with some lefty tendencies ofc) immediately understands and agrees with. The first shift was BLM, the second Uvalde.
Agreed, and the important thing to remember is that the shift in police to seeing the population they are policing as their enemy, and as universally dangerous in black and poor areas, has been accelerating for decades.
The other side (police, the prison industrial complex and the 1% who employs these thugs) is already very clear about this this being Us vs Them, but the general US population was still pretty heavily in denial about it up until BLM.
Yup, and after BLM they would say "but who do you call if there is a shooter?", until Uvalde disproved that idea.
I'm mostly with you, but if I tried to exercise and my legs broke, it'd be kinda wild to say the exercising "worked" because it exposed my shitty, unhealthy knees
That said, I'm all for changing up the narrative and using practical propaganda to expand support for protesters!
I’m mostly with you, but if I tried to exercise and my legs broke, it’d be kinda wild to say the exercising “worked” because it exposed my shitty, unhealthy knees
I mean I think where I disagree with this mapping of the metaphor is that it isn't a personal failing or problem, BLM was one of the biggest protest movements around police violence ever.
You're completely right.
I think framing the success in terms of awareness raised is likely the best way to demonstrate the impact of a protest/movement.
It depends on what kind of effect you're expecting. Did the US state and federal governments suddenly defund the police and start sending reparations to black Americans? No, not exactly. But Derek Chauvin was convicted and sent to prison for 20+ years. Different municipalities did reform their police departments and even implemented things like unarmed crisis response units. BLM has helped introduce policy discussions that would not otherwise be on the table.
The effects of a protest aren't always direct or immediate, their benefit is as much about changing the national narrative on any given issue than it is just achieving a primary goal by the time the protesrs end, and also it's a way to learn what's effective and what's not.
For example, part of why these recent protests were effective and why they illicited such a desperate response from authorities and the media is because the young people looked at the failed tactics from protests like the Occupy movement and adapted.
One if the weaknesses of Occupy was that there was no unified voice, instead the media would walk up and find some random individual, get them to make some unflattering soundbyte and then put that on blast on their networks. By contrast, the students anti-genocide protests designated a spokes person, and when the media approached random protestors they would just direct the media to that spokes person.
It's really smart and that kind of tactical refinement is arguably a result of the failures of Occupy. It made it difficult for the media to fool the public as to what these protests are really about, and you see that born out in people's growing awareness of how fucked up the situation in Gaza not only is right now, but has been for decades.
Protesting and social justice is iterative and experimental, it's about making it more difficult to just continue with business as usual going forward.
we have to keep fighting back against this genocide
This had nothing to do with the protests.
Yo check your tether, friend. Reality can get away from you quick.
He's gonna start calling you a propagandist soon.
Mmmkay. Prove it.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim that this decision had 'nothing' to do with massive, nation-wide, broadly covered protests occurring in a hotly contested election year amongst a key demographic.
So, prove it.
Ahh. So when one person makes a claim that’s unproven, but you believe it- the onus is on the person that asks it to be proven to prove it isn’t?
Sorry, but that’s not how it works..
There is zero evidence to support the statement that this has anything to do with protests. ZERO. you cannot prove it.
I'll save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
I'll also save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
That's just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you're going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election...You're going to look at all that and say it had 'nothing to do' with those same protests.
Not, 'there were other factors', nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
So your proof is no proof. Correlation isn’t causation. Check your work and try again.
Provide proof please.
So this whole time you're simply being pedantic about the word "proof"?
That's pretty pathetic.
If they claim it’s proof without there being proof, it’s a bad faith statement. It’s not pedantic to call it out just because you disagree with it.
It’s disingenuous to take credit for something where no credit was ever given.
What's actually bad faith is knowing what someone meant, but continuing to argue that a single word choice voids their sentiment.
Hey you're crushing this whole internet discussion thing, provided we all join you in persistently ignoring all of the circumstances I keep mentioned.
I have no proof. I have a mountain of evidence, and I am keen to hear your erudite take on why none of it matters.
The, if you like, you can share your evidence, but I doubt you want to.
So if I have no proof the protests didn’t cause this, and you have no proof they did, I’d say it’s a wash and both are wrong.
Which was my point all along.
Just accept that a good thing happened without taking credit for something someone who you do nothing but shit on did.
Also, Internet discussions aren’t something one worries about “crushing” when they’re an adult. I’m not here to “crush” anything. I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
Nothing more. Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
I’m not here to “crush” anything.
It's redundant to point out what can be readily observed by all, but however ineffective you are, it's clear you are trying to "crush" this.
I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
You appear to actually disagree with my definition of evidence, since I've been open about the distinction, and you've ignored repeated offers to engage with my evidence, opting instead to double down on demanding proof in the face of overwhelming evidence.
One last try for posterity: why are you so sure that the protests had nothing to do with it, given how numerous, persistent, widely covered they are, and given the fact that they are happening during what may be the most impactful US presidential race in modern history?
Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
Your gaslighting is as clumsy as your attempts at discourse. I am writing this from my mobile phone, sat at a nice lakeside park on a lovely if overcast day, during my lunch break. You might be excited, but this isn't even taxing my pulse. Maybe stop projecting. We started this out agreeing to disagree, I just wanted you to check your tether to reality, though it's clear to me now that it's been dangling uselessly for a while now.
Can’t prove a negative. Prove it was a result of protests. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Also… I asked first.
I’ll be waiting.
Can’t prove a negative.
Nobody asked you to.
I asked first
No, you didn’t.
You said “proof that protests work”
Where is the proof. Provide it.
you said:
This had nothing to do with the protests.
Where is the proof. Provide it.
I asked first...
Can’t prove a negative. You should prove that protests cause this. Provide it or walk away.
Can’t prove a negative.
Nobody asked you to.
You should prove that This had nothing to do with the protests.. Provide it or walk away.
I can’t prove something didn’t happen kiddo. That’s not how this works. You claimed it did, the onus is on you. But- you clearly have nothing so…. Thanks for playing. We’re done here.
I can’t prove something didn’t happen kiddo
nobody asked you to
This had nothing to do with the protests.
You claimed this, the onus is on you. But- you clearly have nothing so….
Deflect all you wish. This is pointless, and over. You can’t support your claim with any proof so it it’s dismissed.
Blocking you now. I’ve no need to discuss anything further with someone like you.
You can’t support your claim with any proof so it it’s dismissed.
God damn, you're so mad that Biden listened to the protesters you hate because they oppose genocide.
That’s a tough statement to back up. Especially considering the scale of the protests, and Biden’s refusal to speak against isreal until this point.
And saying it is a result of protests is a tough statement to back up especially considering that old leaders do this shit all the time without the need of protestors.
If it was a result of, good. Glad it worked. But saying it’s proof of- which is what I responded to, is disingenuous.
Additionally, these socialists bag on him constantly to the point that it’s damn near a propaganda campaign and then take credit for anything good that he does?
Seriously??????
Prove it
You can't prove a negative
You aren't claiming a negative.
Logically, it was caused by something. You are claiming that the something that caused it was not the protests.
The only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
If you don't do that, you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.
I am claiming a negative. I sad it protests did not cause his actions.
We don’t know what it was caused by, therefore one cannot claim it’s proof of anything.
What should have been said, was
“Maybe the protests helped nudge this into happening….” Or…
“Looks like maybe the protests worked!”
But disingenuously claiming this as a “w” by the same people that spend all day finding hit-piece articles to drag Biden through the mud is pretty shitty.
You don’t get to call someone out as the worst thing for America and then take credit for the good that they do.
I’m done with this discussion.
I sad it protests did not cause his actions.
Again, the only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
What should have been said, was
Agreed. And what you should have said was "There's no evidence that the protests caused his actions." But you didn't, you instead made a falsifiable claim, and refuse to back it up with proof. Making you a hypocrite.
Proof that protest works.
Go ahead, downvote because you’re mad that I’m right.
Upvoted because I'm happy you're right. Biden will lose to the orange criminal if he doesn't stand up and stop money and weapons to Israel. America is fucked if it keeps supporting Israel.
I think you're overestimating how many voters are deeply against Israel's assault on Palestine, while also underestimating the ability of those virtuous people to understand the landslide of harmful outcomes that would come with another trump presidency.
Trump won without the popular vote. He won Michigan by ~10,000 votes in 2016. I'm not the one who decided this system, but this system doesn't give a shit about the majority. It doesn't take much to sway the balance.
Yeah but the Dems will always lose without the majority
Why is there a "but" in your statement? You're effectively agreeing with my sentiment. The Democrats will indeed always lose without the majority.
Because I misunderstood where you were going with it
Protesters vote…
Well some protests. Did anything really happen at all after the BLM protests? Cops are still able to get away with murder and have very little oversight.
The BLM protests did work, they exposed that the US is a violent police state where voting doesn’t actually do anything to change whether we live in a violent police state because both the Republicans and centrist Democrats will collaborate as much as needed to betray their voters in order to sustain the system of policing and prisons.
The fact that in the wake of George Floyd a lot of cities and municipalities actually went more draconian with their policing laws in backlash is only an indicator of a failure of the BLM protests if you don’t look closer, step closer and you see the truth is far scarier, the BLM protests did massively change the psyche of America, it’s just that actually has no effect upon policy making because democracy is so broken in the US to the extreme point where many city governments chose to actively do their opposite of the will of the people as a show of force and a chilling warning to leftists.
In particular, I witnessed ACAB go from something that when I would say it would be nearly impossible to defend to many people, to something almost everyone (with some lefty tendencies ofc) immediately understands and agrees with. The first shift was BLM, the second Uvalde.
Agreed, and the important thing to remember is that the shift in police to seeing the population they are policing as their enemy, and as universally dangerous in black and poor areas, has been accelerating for decades.
The other side (police, the prison industrial complex and the 1% who employs these thugs) is already very clear about this this being Us vs Them, but the general US population was still pretty heavily in denial about it up until BLM.
Yup, and after BLM they would say "but who do you call if there is a shooter?", until Uvalde disproved that idea.
I'm mostly with you, but if I tried to exercise and my legs broke, it'd be kinda wild to say the exercising "worked" because it exposed my shitty, unhealthy knees
That said, I'm all for changing up the narrative and using practical propaganda to expand support for protesters!
I mean I think where I disagree with this mapping of the metaphor is that it isn't a personal failing or problem, BLM was one of the biggest protest movements around police violence ever.
You're completely right.
I think framing the success in terms of awareness raised is likely the best way to demonstrate the impact of a protest/movement.
It depends on what kind of effect you're expecting. Did the US state and federal governments suddenly defund the police and start sending reparations to black Americans? No, not exactly. But Derek Chauvin was convicted and sent to prison for 20+ years. Different municipalities did reform their police departments and even implemented things like unarmed crisis response units. BLM has helped introduce policy discussions that would not otherwise be on the table.
The effects of a protest aren't always direct or immediate, their benefit is as much about changing the national narrative on any given issue than it is just achieving a primary goal by the time the protesrs end, and also it's a way to learn what's effective and what's not.
For example, part of why these recent protests were effective and why they illicited such a desperate response from authorities and the media is because the young people looked at the failed tactics from protests like the Occupy movement and adapted.
One if the weaknesses of Occupy was that there was no unified voice, instead the media would walk up and find some random individual, get them to make some unflattering soundbyte and then put that on blast on their networks. By contrast, the students anti-genocide protests designated a spokes person, and when the media approached random protestors they would just direct the media to that spokes person.
It's really smart and that kind of tactical refinement is arguably a result of the failures of Occupy. It made it difficult for the media to fool the public as to what these protests are really about, and you see that born out in people's growing awareness of how fucked up the situation in Gaza not only is right now, but has been for decades.
Protesting and social justice is iterative and experimental, it's about making it more difficult to just continue with business as usual going forward.
we have to keep fighting back against this genocide
This had nothing to do with the protests.
Yo check your tether, friend. Reality can get away from you quick.
He's gonna start calling you a propagandist soon.
Mmmkay. Prove it.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim that this decision had 'nothing' to do with massive, nation-wide, broadly covered protests occurring in a hotly contested election year amongst a key demographic.
So, prove it.
Ahh. So when one person makes a claim that’s unproven, but you believe it- the onus is on the person that asks it to be proven to prove it isn’t?
Sorry, but that’s not how it works..
There is zero evidence to support the statement that this has anything to do with protests. ZERO. you cannot prove it.
I'll save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
I'll also save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
That's just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you're going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election...You're going to look at all that and say it had 'nothing to do' with those same protests.
Not, 'there were other factors', nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
So your proof is no proof. Correlation isn’t causation. Check your work and try again.
Provide proof please.
So this whole time you're simply being pedantic about the word "proof"?
That's pretty pathetic.
If they claim it’s proof without there being proof, it’s a bad faith statement. It’s not pedantic to call it out just because you disagree with it.
It’s disingenuous to take credit for something where no credit was ever given.
What's actually bad faith is knowing what someone meant, but continuing to argue that a single word choice voids their sentiment.
Hey you're crushing this whole internet discussion thing, provided we all join you in persistently ignoring all of the circumstances I keep mentioned.
I have no proof. I have a mountain of evidence, and I am keen to hear your erudite take on why none of it matters.
The, if you like, you can share your evidence, but I doubt you want to.
So if I have no proof the protests didn’t cause this, and you have no proof they did, I’d say it’s a wash and both are wrong.
Which was my point all along.
Just accept that a good thing happened without taking credit for something someone who you do nothing but shit on did.
Also, Internet discussions aren’t something one worries about “crushing” when they’re an adult. I’m not here to “crush” anything. I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
Nothing more. Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
It's redundant to point out what can be readily observed by all, but however ineffective you are, it's clear you are trying to "crush" this.
You appear to actually disagree with my definition of evidence, since I've been open about the distinction, and you've ignored repeated offers to engage with my evidence, opting instead to double down on demanding proof in the face of overwhelming evidence.
One last try for posterity: why are you so sure that the protests had nothing to do with it, given how numerous, persistent, widely covered they are, and given the fact that they are happening during what may be the most impactful US presidential race in modern history?
Your gaslighting is as clumsy as your attempts at discourse. I am writing this from my mobile phone, sat at a nice lakeside park on a lovely if overcast day, during my lunch break. You might be excited, but this isn't even taxing my pulse. Maybe stop projecting. We started this out agreeing to disagree, I just wanted you to check your tether to reality, though it's clear to me now that it's been dangling uselessly for a while now.
You sure are dumb. You've provided enough evidence for that to be fact.
Dumb for disagreeing with something you like? Do you insult everyone that disagrees with you?
I wonder if there’s a way to describe that…..
Hmmmm….
Can’t prove a negative. Prove it was a result of protests. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Also… I asked first.
I’ll be waiting.
Nobody asked you to.
No, you didn’t.
You said “proof that protests work”
Where is the proof. Provide it.
you said:
Where is the proof. Provide it.
I asked first...
Can’t prove a negative. You should prove that protests cause this. Provide it or walk away.
Nobody asked you to.
You should prove that This had nothing to do with the protests.. Provide it or walk away.
I can’t prove something didn’t happen kiddo. That’s not how this works. You claimed it did, the onus is on you. But- you clearly have nothing so…. Thanks for playing. We’re done here.
nobody asked you to
You claimed this, the onus is on you. But- you clearly have nothing so….
Deflect all you wish. This is pointless, and over. You can’t support your claim with any proof so it it’s dismissed.
Blocking you now. I’ve no need to discuss anything further with someone like you.
You can’t support your claim with any proof so it it’s dismissed.
God damn, you're so mad that Biden listened to the protesters you hate because they oppose genocide.
Would you like protests to stop?
Of course he would. They work.
Biden's actions are pretty clearly NOT a reaction to the protests.
We know this because the protests have been going on for a while now and Biden took no action whatsoever.
It DOES immediately follow THIS news, and my suspicion is this is what caused the change in policy.
March 27th - Israel uses US supplied bombs to illegally attack Southern Lebanon, killing seven aid workers:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/07/israel-us-arms-used-strike-killed-lebanon-aid-workers
April 2nd, Biden reportedly "outraged" over the attack that killed seven members of World Central Kitchen.
https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-outraged-by-israeli-airstrike-that-killed-aid-workers-gaza-2024-04-02/
Now he's saying no, we aren't giving you weapons for Rafa. The last thing he wants is more dead civilians with US supplied bombs.
Yeah. They won’t listen.
That’s a tough statement to back up. Especially considering the scale of the protests, and Biden’s refusal to speak against isreal until this point.
And saying it is a result of protests is a tough statement to back up especially considering that old leaders do this shit all the time without the need of protestors.
If it was a result of, good. Glad it worked. But saying it’s proof of- which is what I responded to, is disingenuous.
Additionally, these socialists bag on him constantly to the point that it’s damn near a propaganda campaign and then take credit for anything good that he does?
Seriously??????
Prove it
You aren't claiming a negative.
Logically, it was caused by something. You are claiming that the something that caused it was not the protests.
The only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
If you don't do that, you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.
I am claiming a negative. I sad it protests did not cause his actions.
We don’t know what it was caused by, therefore one cannot claim it’s proof of anything.
What should have been said, was
“Maybe the protests helped nudge this into happening….” Or…
“Looks like maybe the protests worked!”
But disingenuously claiming this as a “w” by the same people that spend all day finding hit-piece articles to drag Biden through the mud is pretty shitty.
You don’t get to call someone out as the worst thing for America and then take credit for the good that they do.
I’m done with this discussion.
Again, the only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
Agreed. And what you should have said was "There's no evidence that the protests caused his actions." But you didn't, you instead made a falsifiable claim, and refuse to back it up with proof. Making you a hypocrite.
Better luck next time, then.
What caused it?