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.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    100
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

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

        • Eol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Որբունի@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          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

          • Որբունի@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            6 months ago

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

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Straw man

              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).

            • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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?

    • natural_motions@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Uh, are you suggesting the students should’ve shot the pro-genocide protestors?

      This is an example of a scenario where guns absolutely could not solve the problem. They weren’t calling the police over to shoot the counter-protestors…

      There are very, very few situations that can actually be resolved with a gun.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

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

      • irreticent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

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

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

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

    • sudo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.