6 ms·

They should've protested outside, not disturbing others.

by feverzsj 3y ago

cess11 3y ago
That wouldn't be a protest.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  These posters would prefer all protests be relegated to a closed studio TV channel you can simply avoid ever tuning into, and a state that punishes deviancy from that
  - dh2022 3y ago
    I prefer if the protests are relegated to a TV channel I can simply avoid ever tuning into (like CNN or MSNBC). I am not sure what state you have in mind, but US does not punish deviance from anything.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      As can be seen here, they did punish these protesters. And the House has just passed a resolution saying that the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is antisemitic. Many states, such as Texas, require written commitments from all state employees that they will not engage in the BDS movement or other forms of protest against Israel. How are these not a punishment for deviance from the desired positon? Edit: punish, not publish.
      - dh2022 3y ago
        Well, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free is indeed antisemitic... because Israel separates West Bank (the river) from Gaza (the sea). Wanting Palestine to be free from West Bank to Gaza means that Israeli state be broken up - which is antisemitic.... Denying someone employment because of their political views is not punishment...
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        It is not antisemitic to want the borders of Israel to change (if that is how you interpret the song). Just as much as it is not anti-arab or anti-Muslim to want the Palestinian territories to stay disconnected as they are today.
        dh2022 3y ago
        First of all - this is how the song is interpreted by most of the people. Second of all - if you really believe changing Israel's borders is not an act against Jewish people (and thus antisemitic) you and I cannot agree on anything. Freedom to agree to disagree....
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        I think it's extremely important to separate opinions on Israel, a sovereign state where both Jewish people and Arabs and other ethnicities live and are welcome, from opinions on Jewish people. Many Jewish people around the world and inside Israel in fact are strongly against Israel's actions. Some even participate in BDS or other protest movements, even calling for sanctions of Israel. Similarly, many people oppose the USA's actions. Some Texans even want to secede, affecting the borders of the USA. That doesn't make them antisemitic (even though the majority of the world's Jewish population outside Israel lives in the USA), nor anti-caucasian, nor anti-black, nor anti-hispanic (though of course some of them could also be some of these things). There really is no rational reason to say that opposing Israel's actions or wanting it to accommodate certain borders for the Palestinian territories is antisemitic. It is anti-Israel and that's it.
        cess11 3y ago
        Equating judaism with the state of Israel is quite antisemitic. Being of the opinion that the state of Israel is illegitimate or should stop colonialising its neighbours isn't necessarily an antisemitic position, though some antisemites might surely agree. Many others will however stick to the mainstream zionist opinion that jews should be relocated from their home countries to an israeli territory in the Middle East.
      - mrtesthah 3y ago
        You can see other free-speech-related court cases fought by Palestine Legal. I personally don’t think the “from the river…” slogan should be outlawed, being speech, but it does indeed eliminate the country of Israel by referring to its land as “Palestine”.
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        The USA supports the creation of two countries in that area: Israel, with its current borders minus the colonies it has illegally established in the West Bank, and Palestine, which would include the Gaza strip and the West Bank (in its full 1947 territory, minus the illegal Israeli colonies). The country of Palestine would then stretch from the river (in the West Bank) to the sea (in Gaza). Of course, it is also sometimes used to call for the dissolution of the state of Israel. Even that is not per se antisemitic (not that I suport this - Israel has won it's right to exist). There are just as many Jewish people living outside of Israel as inside.
        kelthuzad 3y ago
        Israel has not won its "right to exist", if anything, its entire history of ethnic-cleansing, murder, apartheid and now genocide has lost them the "right to exist", not that the apartheid colony ever had such a "right" anyway. Israel will only exist as long as it's possible for the USA to protect them, the moment that support crumbles Israel is no more. Looking at the trends, it's looking extremely bleak for Israel, considering that US support is largely artificial and not organic. The support arises first and foremost from the work of the israeli lobby AIPAC which takes advantage of America's legalized bribery [1] that results in undue influence on congress. Another big factor are evangelicals, who are misguided by corrupt pastors and televangelists like John Hagee who are in a business relationship with the israeli lobby and thus have a vested interest in forcing a zionist misinterpretation[4] of the bible to artificially create support for israel. A key factor in the changing landscape of evangelical Christianity is generational differences. Younger evangelicals are often less aligned with traditional evangelical positions and are harder to misguide with misinterpretations that have no sound basis. [1] So You Want to Bribe a Politician - https://youtu.be/QZcLuT3RasA https://youtu.be/QZcLuT3RasA [2] Why evangelicals influence US foreign policy in the Middle East - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhT7oyDlBIk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhT7oyDlBIk [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee [4] Eschatological Madness about Israel, James White - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gmd90XJyhA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gmd90XJyhA
      - x-egghead 3y ago
        It's a new Christian fundamentalism-backed ideological McCarthyism to erase the entire left with a new loyalist pledge... sort of like what totalitarian and communism regimes have required. "Separation of church and state be damned, you must believe X or you are un-American and forbidden to hold a job" is their modus operandi.
        dh2022 3y ago
        Are you living in America? If so, how did you miss the 50% of the population that is the exact opposite of "new Christian fundamentalism-backed ideological McCarthyism"????
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - x-egghead 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
faeriechangling 3y ago
The people inside should maybe, I don't know, not be working at a company aiding and abetting apartheid and expecting to not be disturbed? Seems like putting up with a few disturbances is a small price to pay given the high compensation you'll get for working at google. These people will be quickly escorted outside the building by police and fired anyways.
- lebean 3y ago
  [flagged]
jart 3y ago
That's like saying Occupy Wall Street should have protested in the Bronx, so they wouldn't disturb Wall Street.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  And look how effective the Occupy Wall Street protests have been!
  - gorbot 3y ago
    Oh yeah good idea anything that ends up failing shouldn’t be attempted in the first place Genius!! Why doesn’t everyone do that?! Cmon man hahah
- dh2022 3y ago
  Occupy Wall Street protests took place in a park. I assure you if the Occupy Wall Street protesters entered bank buildings and unfurled their banners they would have been arrested.
- CSMastermind 3y ago
  For the record, Occupy Wall Street didn't disturb Wall Street. It was a small protest at a park a few blocks away. If you actually live in Manhattan it's hilarious how big of deal the media made what was ultimately an incredibly small and insignificant event.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    There are always Americans with a deep-seated belief that US society needs radical change; many of those are journalists. From about 1975 to about 2015 however US society was stable and radical change was very unlikely, so the radical journalists focused vast amounts of their attention on Occupy Wall Street because for a few years it was the movement most likely to cause radical change (that the journalists knew about) even though the actual likelihood was very low. Again, some journalists (and others) are constantly hoping for radical change; during periods of societal stability, that constant hope will result in their focusing on very slim hopes for radical change -- resulting in ridiculous exaggeration in the press of the importance of movements like Occupy Wall Street.

They should've protested outside, not disturbing others.

cess11 3y ago

That wouldn't be a protest.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
These posters would prefer all protests be relegated to a closed studio TV channel you can simply avoid ever tuning into, and a state that punishes deviancy from that
- dh2022 3y ago
  I prefer if the protests are relegated to a TV channel I can simply avoid ever tuning into (like CNN or MSNBC). I am not sure what state you have in mind, but US does not punish deviance from anything.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    As can be seen here, they did punish these protesters. And the House has just passed a resolution saying that the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is antisemitic. Many states, such as Texas, require written commitments from all state employees that they will not engage in the BDS movement or other forms of protest against Israel. How are these not a punishment for deviance from the desired positon? Edit: punish, not publish.
    - dh2022 3y ago
      Well, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free is indeed antisemitic... because Israel separates West Bank (the river) from Gaza (the sea). Wanting Palestine to be free from West Bank to Gaza means that Israeli state be broken up - which is antisemitic.... Denying someone employment because of their political views is not punishment...
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        It is not antisemitic to want the borders of Israel to change (if that is how you interpret the song). Just as much as it is not anti-arab or anti-Muslim to want the Palestinian territories to stay disconnected as they are today.
        dh2022 3y ago
        First of all - this is how the song is interpreted by most of the people. Second of all - if you really believe changing Israel's borders is not an act against Jewish people (and thus antisemitic) you and I cannot agree on anything. Freedom to agree to disagree....
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        I think it's extremely important to separate opinions on Israel, a sovereign state where both Jewish people and Arabs and other ethnicities live and are welcome, from opinions on Jewish people. Many Jewish people around the world and inside Israel in fact are strongly against Israel's actions. Some even participate in BDS or other protest movements, even calling for sanctions of Israel. Similarly, many people oppose the USA's actions. Some Texans even want to secede, affecting the borders of the USA. That doesn't make them antisemitic (even though the majority of the world's Jewish population outside Israel lives in the USA), nor anti-caucasian, nor anti-black, nor anti-hispanic (though of course some of them could also be some of these things). There really is no rational reason to say that opposing Israel's actions or wanting it to accommodate certain borders for the Palestinian territories is antisemitic. It is anti-Israel and that's it.
      - cess11 3y ago
        Equating judaism with the state of Israel is quite antisemitic. Being of the opinion that the state of Israel is illegitimate or should stop colonialising its neighbours isn't necessarily an antisemitic position, though some antisemites might surely agree. Many others will however stick to the mainstream zionist opinion that jews should be relocated from their home countries to an israeli territory in the Middle East.
    - mrtesthah 3y ago
      You can see other free-speech-related court cases fought by Palestine Legal. I personally don’t think the “from the river…” slogan should be outlawed, being speech, but it does indeed eliminate the country of Israel by referring to its land as “Palestine”.
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        The USA supports the creation of two countries in that area: Israel, with its current borders minus the colonies it has illegally established in the West Bank, and Palestine, which would include the Gaza strip and the West Bank (in its full 1947 territory, minus the illegal Israeli colonies). The country of Palestine would then stretch from the river (in the West Bank) to the sea (in Gaza). Of course, it is also sometimes used to call for the dissolution of the state of Israel. Even that is not per se antisemitic (not that I suport this - Israel has won it's right to exist). There are just as many Jewish people living outside of Israel as inside.
        kelthuzad 3y ago
        Israel has not won its "right to exist", if anything, its entire history of ethnic-cleansing, murder, apartheid and now genocide has lost them the "right to exist", not that the apartheid colony ever had such a "right" anyway. Israel will only exist as long as it's possible for the USA to protect them, the moment that support crumbles Israel is no more. Looking at the trends, it's looking extremely bleak for Israel, considering that US support is largely artificial and not organic. The support arises first and foremost from the work of the israeli lobby AIPAC which takes advantage of America's legalized bribery [1] that results in undue influence on congress. Another big factor are evangelicals, who are misguided by corrupt pastors and televangelists like John Hagee who are in a business relationship with the israeli lobby and thus have a vested interest in forcing a zionist misinterpretation[4] of the bible to artificially create support for israel. A key factor in the changing landscape of evangelical Christianity is generational differences. Younger evangelicals are often less aligned with traditional evangelical positions and are harder to misguide with misinterpretations that have no sound basis. [1] So You Want to Bribe a Politician - https://youtu.be/QZcLuT3RasA https://youtu.be/QZcLuT3RasA [2] Why evangelicals influence US foreign policy in the Middle East - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhT7oyDlBIk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhT7oyDlBIk [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee [4] Eschatological Madness about Israel, James White - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gmd90XJyhA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gmd90XJyhA
    - x-egghead 3y ago
      It's a new Christian fundamentalism-backed ideological McCarthyism to erase the entire left with a new loyalist pledge... sort of like what totalitarian and communism regimes have required. "Separation of church and state be damned, you must believe X or you are un-American and forbidden to hold a job" is their modus operandi.
      - dh2022 3y ago
        Are you living in America? If so, how did you miss the 50% of the population that is the exact opposite of "new Christian fundamentalism-backed ideological McCarthyism"????
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- x-egghead 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

faeriechangling 3y ago

The people inside should maybe, I don't know, not be working at a company aiding and abetting apartheid and expecting to not be disturbed? Seems like putting up with a few disturbances is a small price to pay given the high compensation you'll get for working at google. These people will be quickly escorted outside the building by police and fired anyways.

lebean 3y ago
[flagged]

jart 3y ago

That's like saying Occupy Wall Street should have protested in the Bronx, so they wouldn't disturb Wall Street.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
And look how effective the Occupy Wall Street protests have been!
- gorbot 3y ago
  Oh yeah good idea anything that ends up failing shouldn’t be attempted in the first place Genius!! Why doesn’t everyone do that?! Cmon man hahah
dh2022 3y ago
Occupy Wall Street protests took place in a park. I assure you if the Occupy Wall Street protesters entered bank buildings and unfurled their banners they would have been arrested.
CSMastermind 3y ago
For the record, Occupy Wall Street didn't disturb Wall Street. It was a small protest at a park a few blocks away. If you actually live in Manhattan it's hilarious how big of deal the media made what was ultimately an incredibly small and insignificant event.
- hollerith 3y ago
  There are always Americans with a deep-seated belief that US society needs radical change; many of those are journalists. From about 1975 to about 2015 however US society was stable and radical change was very unlikely, so the radical journalists focused vast amounts of their attention on Occupy Wall Street because for a few years it was the movement most likely to cause radical change (that the journalists knew about) even though the actual likelihood was very low. Again, some journalists (and others) are constantly hoping for radical change; during periods of societal stability, that constant hope will result in their focusing on very slim hopes for radical change -- resulting in ridiculous exaggeration in the press of the importance of movements like Occupy Wall Street.