@wildgrass said
Do you really think these folks are anti semites? They're kids, born in 2007, looking at the 30:1 kill ratio in this war and wondering why Israel needs to use US-purchased weapons on unarmed civilians.

They obviously don't understand the nuance of the situation, the long history of the conflict, the extreme terrorism along a Palestinian minority.

But they are not anti ...[text shortened]... ffredojeremy/status/1783651274975523285

https://twitter.com/thrasherxy/status/1783594696733762016

The kids who are marching are probably just doing it because it's the cool and in thing to do.

"These goons are just happy to skip out in class and ignore the tuition bill for a few days" sounds about right for most of them.

On the other hand, the organizers and leaders of many of these protests are rabid anti-Semites.

How can you tell the difference between protesting Israel and Jew-hater? It's simpler than you think:

Protesting Israel:

"Cease fire now!"
"Justice for Palestine"
"Stop the war in Gaza"

Jew-hatred:

- Arrow pointing at Jews with sign that says “Al Qasam's next targets”
- “We're all Hamas”
- Forming a human chain to block the guy in the Yarmulka who wasn't wearing anything "Israeli" but merely looked Jewish

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

@mott-the-hoople said
what you are seeing for the most part is george soros funded agitators.

I hope you're right. But I don't know. Decades of wokist support of the idea that any successful group is an exploiter of the underprivileged may have created a class of people who really think the reasons their societies suck is that Jews have stolen their money and jobs, and a class of liberal rich whites who find it convenient to scapegoat the Jews.

Unfortunately, I've seen the movie before.

@kevcvs57 said
“ The far right's canards about Jewish influence and media corrupting the western world is far less malignant than the far left's screeches that Jews are genocidal colonialists.”
Probably seems more malignant because a rational person might see some merit in the 2nd claim whereas only a diehard antisemitic lunatic would base their opinion of the Jewish people on the Ist cl ...[text shortened]... if the idf has to kill 2 million gazans in order to destroy Hamas? Can we talk about genocide then?

===Are you saying European Jews did not colonise Palestine?===

Nobody colonized "Palestine." "Palestine" was never a sovereign entity. It was governed by the Turks, and later the British, who either allowed or did not stop European Jews from moving in. There were always significant (discriminated against) Jewish settlements in the area as well, of course. The last sovereign to govern "Palestine" was the Jewish kingdom that was sacked by the Romans about 1950 years ago.

Moreover, "colonizations" have been the manner in which almost all people got to where they are. Whether the Turks or British were justified or not in allowing European Jews to settle in Palestine is an exceptionally irrelevant question, especially since a large percentage of Israelis were forcibly expelled from Arab countries.

===What if the idf has to kill 2 million gazans in order to destroy Hamas? Can we talk about genocide then?===

Yes, if they kill 2 million Gazans, then we can talk about Genocide. Or at least we can wait until at least one of the following two things happen before we start talking about "Genocide":

1. The Gaza population shows something other than significant population growth over, say, a year.

2. Israel does to Gaza something that approaches the ankles of what we did to Hamburg or Dresden during World War II.

@shavixmir said
Oh the irony… the extreme right worried about Jews.

Though this was not true historically, today, the far left is a far greater threat to Jews than the far right. And it's not very close.

The far right hates Jews based on some mystical racial bunkum that's basically the same as they hold against racial minorities, but which they basically seem to have given up on doing anything about.

The far left hates Jews because they see all Jews as proxies for racist colonialism that they feel justified in fighting violently.

The far right's canards about Jewish influence and media corrupting the western world is far less malignant than the far left's screeches that Jews are genocidal colonialists.

@wildgrass said
sh76 - That was my awkward attempt at sarcasm. The thread topic is hypocrisy. Sorry for the offense. These are the same politicians that called it peaceful after protests where someone was shot to death. "Good people on both sides" after someone was purposefully run over by a car. What's worse: afraid to go to class, or being dead?

The right wing politicians call for fre ...[text shortened]... ul even if there is lethal violence employed, just because they support the cause of the protestors.

Thank you. I appreciate the conciliatory tone.

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden, but I have to tell you that what's going on in college campuses is f-in scary. From what I've seen on these videos, these protests are about 60% against Israel and 40% against Jews.

@wildgrass said
Now they want the National Guard to disperse peaceful protestors?

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/22/columbia-new-york-troops-00153651

HYPOCRITES!

Come on, have some conviction guys. Support the speech you hate, or stop pretending to be a defender of free speech.

Free speech? Are you serious?

Jackbooted thugs are literally stopping Jews from moving through the campus because they are Jews (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1782278428466565433) and terrorizing people to the extent that they are terrified to go to class (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-hold-classes-virtually-jewish-leaders-warn-safety-palestinian-rcna148733).

Peaceful protesters. Ha.

Like the mostly peaceful city-burners during the BLM riots.

I like you, wildgrass, but your OP is sick. This isn't about the freaking GOP. This is about open discrimination that you would NEVER tolerate if it were against a favored minority group.

@spruce112358 said
Not really. Self-defense is not bad, so we, as liberals, are not condemning that.

When someone INITIATES a violation of your rights, you can respond as needed to compel them to stop.

Just for kicks and hypotheticals, will you unequivocally condemn the intentional use the rape of civilians as a weapon of war EVEN in defense?

Or, for example, do you think that the intentional use the rape of civilians as a weapon of war is fine in defense?

@spruce112358 said
I'll go ahead and condemn any organization that INITIATES a violation of the rights of others.

That's not what I asked. In fact, it's something quite different.

If you want to refuse, that's your choice.

But it kinda vitiates the point made in your OP.

@spruce112358 said
We don't have the right to place others at risk without their consent.

Examples:
Drunk driving. Let's say you manage to drive home without killing anyone. It is still wrong because you put everyone on the road at risk.

Pointing a gun at someone. The other person is 'at risk' because he doesn't know if it is loaded or what you intend.

Producing anthrax in your b ...[text shortened]... s beside the point. Putting others at risk without consent is wrong and a violation of their rights.

===Pointing a gun at someone. The other person is 'at risk' because he doesn't know if it is loaded or what you intend.===

I don't understand. How does that put him at risk?

@spruce112358 said
There. We've condemned everything bad you can think of including pedophila, misogyny, putting trash in the recycle bin, and cruising in the passing lane.

So you can't use that one anymore, AverageJoe!

Just for kicks, go ahead and condemn any organization that intentionally uses the rape of civilians as a weapon of war...

@zahlanzi said
the same way was pointing a gun at everyone you meet before they attack you isn't defense

Of course it is. It may not always be a good defense or a smart defense, but it's definitely a defense (if the intent is defensive, of course).

Walking around with a holster or a gun-like bulge in a dangerous area is quite a common technique, and is based on the same principle.

@averagejoe1 said
How can anyone who simply watches the news not be biased? Just the film clips of a president who has to be led around like a dog would cause be to biased about such a man sitting in the Oval. Or what if SHouse was on a jury in the Trump cases, he would not even bother with the evidence, he has seen enough. I impaneled a jury once, and in the voir dire, when asked about ...[text shortened]... efendant sitting there, and said.." I can tell by lookiing at him, he is Guilty!" She was let go.

That's an excellent question and one that can't be easily answered. The judge would have to keep trying until they found people who can be fair. That doesn't mean the jurors have to have no political opinions or not have heard of Trump, but they'd have to satisfy the judge that they can be impartial.

The person you dealt with is their not jury material or possible was trying to get out of jury duty.

@wildgrass said
What if the selection of an impartial jury is impossible?

If that's the case, the defendant would have to walk. A person cannot be convicted without a jury trial (unless he waives it) and if that can't be provided, then there can be no conviction.

@spruce112358 said
Of course, but then you have to start talking about QALYs (quality-adjusted life years).

How much would you say your QoL was reduced in 2021 let's say, compared to the average year? Due to COVID, and then due to COVID + the government response.

__________Normal Year______COVID____ COVID+ Gov Response
sh76 QoL _____1______________?______________?

2021? None. I happen to be lucky enough to live in an area where most people lived their lives as normal in 2021. I also got my shots in February of that year and starting 14 days after the second shot, I dropped the mask (except where required) and lived my life as normal. My family also, more or less, lived normal lives in 2021.

Unfortunately, many people weren't as lucky as I was.

2020 is a more complex question. I only really judge covid reactions after about May or June, as until then, we were all just running around like chickens with our heads cut off and nobody really knew what to do.

I am convinced that part of the reason for the summer of fire that year was the fact that people were both traumatized and bored.

In June of 2020, when all of a sudden, nobody cared about covid anymore during the Floyd protests, a joke started gaining currency:

"Did you hear the joke about the cure for covid? It's a riot!"

Fine, I figured, so now we're over worrying about covid.

Then September came and with it, all of a sudden, the governor of New York was declaring red zones where houses of worship were shut down and gatherings were once again being prohibited. And I'm like, WTF?

And then these scumbag politicians and media authorities started trying to gaslight us into believing that the whole summer of free-for-all never happened. That CHAZ and CHOP and the mostly peaceful cities ablaze were all a figment of right wing imagination.

The scales fell from my eyes and, while I still certainly support some government activities when private enterprise can't manage them, I'll never trust the establishment (on things that matter) without verifying again.