10 ms·

> He goes way too far though that's what activist have to do to shake people

• raverbashing 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • l23k4 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    • ACCount37 4mo ago
      2 out of 3 for "bombed to shit". I wouldn't call that "working". I'm not sure if Iran's regime has the staying power, but Hamas sure doesn't seem to be in a good shape lately.
      • l23k4 4mo ago
        > but Hamas sure doesn't seem to be in a good shape lately. And who do you see on track to displace Hamas? After years and years of conflict and being "bombed to shit", they're as entrenched as ever while their enemy declines much faster. Israel is getting to a point where it has no friends left in the world, where the average European youth thinks nuking Israel and turning into a glass parking lot would probably be a net positive. Jews are starting to be broadly despised again thanks to Israeli policy, something that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. Hamas operatives lead shitty lives in the Gaza strip as they have for decades, but they certainly aren't losing control. Over the course of a few years, Hamas managed to turn wearing a star of David in big EU cities into a dangerous political statement. And we're supposed to believe that they're not winning?
        • SukadarBukadar 4mo ago
          There are two actors and you're mixing up who is responsible for which outcome. I explained in more detail in another comment
          • walletdrainer 4mo ago
            There's no credit due for correctly reading your adversary? Obviously the Israelis could have just kept their mask on, but Hamas was clearly correct in their calculation that they wouldn't.
        • throw37842358 4mo ago
          Your arguments are self-contradictory. You say force is great, but only for Hamas - not for Israel. A youth who thinks Israel should be genocided doesn’t care about genocide, so why hate Israel? The hate in Europe is driven primarily by an influx of people who were hating Jews anyway, and who naively think that the hatred won’t backfire on them. Once you start promoting racism it comes for everyone.
          • inigyou 4mo ago
            A youth who hates Israel thinks genociding genociders is okay
          • l23k4 4mo ago
            >The hate in Europe is driven primarily by an influx of people who were hating Jews anyway You are mistaken, the sentiments are shifting across the board. This is probably driven to a significant degree by the Israeli national policy of tying any criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and the broad acceptance of that policy by Jewish communities globally. Because of this implicit endorsement, it is not surprising that many would struggle to separate between the actions by taken by the state of Israel and those who call themselves Jews.
            • throw37842358 4mo ago
              You can’t blame the victims for racism. The whole point of racism is that it lumps people together based on the actions of some. It’s the same way Islamophobia doesn’t become justified based on the actions of some Muslims. Anyone who does do that is already a bigot, and would do the same to any other group, regardless of what they do. A culture that normalizes hatred of Jews (or Israelis) as a group, will very quickly devolve into one where other minorities are hated as well. Because the youth, as gullible as they are, can still detect when a system of values is inconsistent.
              • cindyllm 4mo ago
                [dead]
      • actionfromafar 4mo ago
        Even if every single Hamas was killed - you have a whole population totally traumatized. That's extremely fertile ground for something like Hamas to pop up again. So, a lot of sufferring but Bibi and "Hamas" (or whatever) prospers.
        • inigyou 4mo ago
          Hamas has been killed. Again and again and again. But people keep joining this "Hamas" resistance group against Israel so the group never seems to go away. And do you know why they join? They join because Israel killed their whole families.
    • watwut 4mo ago
      The final victory of Islamic Republic was after they did NOT used force against west, but when America and Israel started idiotic war, bragged about using force and then promptly lost. This was quite literally the case of "actions backfire" situation.
    • SukadarBukadar 4mo ago
      How is force working for Hamas? The shift in general sentiment towards Israel came from Israel's blatant disregard for civilian life and from their apartheid politics being put in spotlight. Hamas are still regarded as terrorist savages by everyone sane and their Oct 7 attack served as an excuse for Israel to set them back and hunt them regardless of collateral casualties, terrorizing their compatriots
      • walletdrainer 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        • raverbashing 4mo ago
          While there are useful idiots in any situation (especially inside the UN), the level of sympathy for them - while was never high is going down steadly
        • SukadarBukadar 4mo ago
          Noone is responsible for others' (overre)actions. So if you think justice for Palestinian civilians is their cause, it's not them who are responsible for it winning hearts and minds globally
        • throw37842358 4mo ago
          It’s sounds like you think it’s brilliant that more Palestinians were killed as long as it negatively affected Israel’s PR.
          • joxdosba 4mo ago
            [flagged]
          • walletdrainer 4mo ago
            lol
        • Larrikin 4mo ago
    • raverbashing 4mo ago
      The level of general sympathy for one of those (and their level of success) is much higher than for the others Maybe because they were actively avoiding civilian targets And even then mostly because a lot of people were supportive of their cause even if they were against their methods
      • walletdrainer 4mo ago
        >And even then mostly because a lot of people were supportive of their cause even if they were against their methods But IRA didn't win because those people supported their cause, IRA won despite those people being against their methods. It was the force they used which directly led to the GFA, without the bombs and the killing the British would never have surrendered.
        • erentz 4mo ago
          How can we know the IRA “won”? The country changed a hell of a lot over the course of the Troubles and by the time of the GFA in 1998 I don’t see how it is so clear that the reforms wouldn’t have also been achieved via other peaceful and democratic means.
          • walletdrainer 4mo ago
            > How can we know the IRA “won”? In signing the GFA, the UK effectively gave up on it's sovereignty over NI. That was never going to happen through "peaceful and democratic means"
            • erentz 4mo ago
              What makes it giving up sovereignty? I understand it creates the potential for separation in future but not yet. The devolution of Scotland and Wales happened peacefully a couple(?) of years later, and Scotland may also separate in future.
              • walletdrainer 4mo ago
  • elsjaako 4mo ago
    I don't know about this case, so I can only speak in general. A lot of times people that say this don't make a strong case that some theoretical more moderate protest would be effective. There is just a feeling that if they personally feel offended by the actions of the protester then it's probably a bad thing. In reality it's often more complicated. I know some people that are involved with controversial protests, and the effectiveness of their actions is definitely something they think about. It can't be too extreme, that will put people off like you say. But often there is conversations like in this thread, "this protester goes too far, but they do have a point". This moves the Overton window in the desired direction. The goal isn't too make you like the protester, it's to make you think about the issues.
    • raverbashing 4mo ago
      Yes I totally agree, and there are nuances and details But it's easy to push to one side or another
• kakacik 4mo ago
  Attacking families is firmly across the line and looks like crazy man's personal vendetta. Who can vouch he won't go further and ie won't kidnap a kid to achieve his goals. No wonder he gets raided, at one point it becomes a topic about protecting one's family, left or right, moral or crook doesn't matter anymore. Its not activist anymore in any meaningful sense, just a fanatic.
  • close04 4mo ago
    > crazy man's personal vendetta. Who can vouch he won't go further and ie won't kidnap a kid to achieve his goals. You just committed exactly the kind of escalation that you condemn when it's about him. So what if someone can vouch for him? What's that worth? "Vouching" is worthless in any circumstance I can think of, and nobody can give you guarantees about anything. I can't vouch that you won't do exactly the same, or that you weren't the masked police who raced to the breakers so he's not filmed while breaking the law (innocent people have nothing to hide, right?), or that you're not one of the politicians pushing for oppressive laws for your personal benefit.
    • kakacik 4mo ago
      Jeez, you grabbed a single word from an expression that even non-native speakers like me know very well how to interpret and went a bit too deep into your self-made projections and on-purpose incorrect interpretations. Just to be clear - there is no actual vouching, there never was, nor any plans for that. Fanatics are unpredictable, it doesn't matter in which area, their decisions are primarily emotional. He certainly behaved as one. Rest are details. Or do you consider family stalking as a correct sane approach that actually achieves the goal effectively?
• ngruhn 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • joe_mamba 4mo ago
    >A successful case might be Luigi Mangione. Sorry, but how was that murder successful? Did it achieve the effect that everyone is getting cheaper healthcare now? OR, on the contrary, it only achieved that CEOs are now getting more anonymity and private security, while the plebs are getting more invasive law enforcement tracking like Palantir and Flock shoved up their ass to prevent them from doing something like that again?
    • justinclift 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      • joe_mamba 4mo ago
        >One less psychopath in charge of a US health care provider being around? What kind of broken logic is this? What good did this do for you if the end result for you is the same or worse now? Other than feel good for vigilante vengeance than then backfires on you in the end. It's not like there's a shortage of CEOs to take his place and keep doing the same thing. You're not in a comic book movie where if you kill the main "bad guy" then society magically fixes itself at the end, because there is no main villain here, society is broken not because of the decisions of one CEO, but because of a combination of decisions of thousands of people, factors and incentives accumulated over decades that lead to healthcare and other things sucking, and you don't fix it overnight by killing one guy, you instead just make it worse for everyone else who isn't a murderer. You fix it by talking, campaigning, gathering people and voting, knowing that it will also take decades to undo, the same way as it took decades to get to this stage. That's the only way you enact change that will will guarantee bi-partisan buy-in and actually stick around for the long term. Policy changes implemented by populist movements under threat of violence rarely produce good outcomes that last.
        • 4mo ago
• Gareth321 4mo ago
  I have heard this claim before but I find it unconvincing. I have given up support of movements for which activists have acted cruelly or otherwise immorally. Obviously one person doesn't represent a movement, but if I only ever see immoral people leading a movement, that will form a basis for my opinion of the movement. My observation of these activists is usually that they seek attention at any cost. They will hurt people to achieve that attention. Worse, I don't even think it's about the movement. They just want the attention personally. Others in the movement tacitly condone this behaviour. I think the most frustrating part of this is that they claim it's to raise awareness. Who among us has not heard of global warming? Who has not heard of data privacy? The reality is that they're not getting the public support they desire because people just don't agree with their goals or beliefs, not because the public is "unaware."
  • Jweb_Guru 4mo ago
    > I have heard this claim before but I find it unconvincing. I have given up support of movements for which activists have acted cruelly or otherwise immorally. Most people aren't this particular brand of irrational.
    • sojournerc 4mo ago
      Ghandi once said during a visit to the west, "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians". It is not irrational to question movements you might nominally agree with but that manifest in immoral or inconsistent ways.
  • wqaatwt 4mo ago
    You do have a valid point but mildly “hurting” (or rather inconveniencing) the justice minister of Denmark out of all places seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I mean he’s hellbent on using 1984 as a guidebook and forcing it on everyone in the EU.
• bawolff 4mo ago
  > that's what activist have to do to shake people That's also the line most terrorist groups use. Its not exactly wrong i suppose. 9/11 did get Americans to think about the middle east a lot more.
  • warumdarum 4mo ago
    [flagged]
  • calgoo 4mo ago
    The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is a matter of which side of the fence you stand on. They are basically the same thing, especially these days when you get marked as terrorist for talking bad about the people in power.
    • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is a matter of which side of the fence Oft repeated but untrue. Terrorism, empirically, doesn’t work. Non-violent protest, and armed insurrection (aimed at the state, not its population) do. Sometimes freedom fighters can benefit from terrorism. But they are distinct strategies with separate targets.
      • Mainan_Tagonist 4mo ago
        And freedom fighters are supposed to actually care about "freedom" while terrorists generally do not. I fail to see what great advancements in freedom for anyone involved have come out of the terror attacks performed over the past 25 years.
        • deanishe 4mo ago
          Islamists fight to be the oppressors, not to help the oppressed.
          • 4mo ago
• dark-star 4mo ago
  doxxing and/or stalking the kids (minors) of the person you disagree with is still kind of a d*ck move though
• tim-tday 4mo ago
  Going too far turns me against you. The more righteous your cause the more pissed off I am at you when you’re excess discredits it.