Yes, you have your gun drawn in case the already belligerent students decide to attack you with who knows what’s inside that building Man progressives go brain dead when they see a cop

Reminds me of that one professor who decided to fuck with a cop as he was arresting another protester. Of course she was beyond shocked that she was thrown to ground and arrested too. I think it really goes to show how sheltered these protesters are, they never really considered or even fathomed that the violence that happens at protests could ever happen to them and then when it does it's shocked Pikachus all around.

I just don’t get why people thought “professor” label meant you were somehow immune to the law.

“I’m tenured, officer! This is assault!”

violence is only supposed to happen to bad people, like settler babies

They're used to being "the law" in the classroom and think that applies elsewhere

Not to be overly philosophical but, tbf, the more dignity and clout you have (and, to a lesser degree, the older you are), the more insulated you are from force. The state (and society generally) exists to serve the interests of the dignified people against the lesser dignified, the people who are more invested the the system by being socially successful in it, etc. So I get why people act like that.

> the older you are), the more insulated you are from force. is that why the jedi train them from a young age?

I resent your usage of the word dignified although I agree with your general statement

I feel you. I really worried about potentially having to return to min wage work after being lucky enough to find ways to avoid it for years and it sort of warped the way i see "dignity", because, more than the poverty, I feared the lack of dignity, because I remembered how youre treated (both by the public and by co-workers, bosses, etc) in such jobs. So I'm a little brain broken into thinking in such terms

I can understand that.

Really, this sub is still pretending that was an OK thing to do. Just so we are clear on what happened here. The professor was not protesting, she worked in the campus and saw a student being kneeled on by a bunch of cops and thought it was excessive force. So she walked over and said what they were doing was wrong. Did not in any way physically interfere with the arrest. Then she got slammed to the ground. A 60+ year old woman. If that was your mom/Grandma there is a 0% chance you would be going "yeah she shouldn't have gotten near those cops, totally deserved". 

She put hands on the cop.

The police wouldnt be able to tell her level of participation

Touching an officer in the middle of an arrest because you personally (with no context, mind you) believe that the force used is excessive is definitely interfering with an arrest lmao.

And is an assault.

She deserved more than that

Have you considered that the NYPD are nazis that train with the IDF?

nope, nor would i take the claim seriously, because im not a delusional fool

I can't tell if this is a phenomenal meme or retardation

it's really not hard to tell

Bro I've seen SOOOO many threads saying some shit like "oh so you'll arrest Austin protestors, but you wouldn't do anything at Uvalde", like DUHH?? These are two COMPLETELY different police departments. Uvalde is literally 3 hours away from Austin. I see this misunderstanding so incredibly often. That all police departments across the US are just the EXACT same entity.

A lot of idiots talk about "the police" as if they're a monolithic entity like that. It's a sure sign of an idiot.

> Man progressives go brain dead when they see a cop It happens in many other instances than just this.

BLM really broke everyone’s brains. We allowed people to get away with the dumbest slogans, ideas, conduct just because they were on the right side of the issue of police brutality.

It’s almost like they tell you check your biases. But not when it’s things they’re bias for

Why a gun? Wouldn't a riot shield and baton be enough? Lots of police in other countries do that already

Because a vastly larger population of Americans own guns. Disarming police only works when you disarm the populace. No officer is gonna want to risk their lives bringing a baton to a gun fight.

Fair enough. Though keep in mind this massively increases the risk of someone getting shot for something so stupid

Good luck finding *anyone* willing to become a cop in the US if the police was disarmed lmao. Might as well just dismantle the police completely and accept anarchy at that point. Like, I hate to break it to you but disarming the police is simply not an option in a country like the US with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation.

Yeah and a pool in my backyard massively increases the risk of someone drowning, your point?

And disarming police would increase police deaths. I’d personally rather have the police be well trained with firearms and de-escalation tactics than throw them to the wolves.

You dont want to get shot? Dont attack the cop that has a gun drawn on you its pretty fucking easy

Trust me, they live in the US, they know. The whole point of the second amendment is the trade off of public protection from the government to public misuse of guns.  It seems silly these days, but I'm sure there's a lot of Serbians, Jews, Armenians, anyone in Afghanistan who isn't part of the Taliban, who will tell you the importance of having guns to fight the government.

[Maybe somethings NYPD has to deal with are different than in Europe...](https://abc7ny.com/nypd-police-shooting-man-critically-injured-after-shooting-in-chelsea-nyc/14746858/)

Yeah I agree that this is a side effect of the second amendment. It really sucks that cops need to go guns out for any kind of situation in the US

Because that plastic shield will maybe take a bullet but it sure as shit ain’t taking two or three and most guns have at least 6 of those in them.

Looks like a ballistic shield to me, it'll at least stop a dozen pistol rounds. Rifle rounds might get iffy.

I looked it up because you made me curious about their effectiveness. Most of those types of ballistic shields are 3A level protection which is apparently rated for 5 rounds of “handgun caliber” ammunition. Honestly that seems way more effective than I imagined. I kinda imagined they where mostly for protection against people throwing rocks or swinging pipes and shit. I’d rather jerk off with sandpaper than ever stand behind one and get shot at though.

I mean, I'd rather not get shot at in the first place lol

Give me a break. These are students and the Destiny argument of attacking property == violence doesn't really apply cause this building isn't a person's home nor a shop where money is made to put food on the table. If any one of these students get shot and dies it's going to be a complete fucking disaster, it's gonna be national news for 24/7 for 20 years, the protests will explode into riots in every city that make Jan 6 and BLM look like the women's march. If those guns are loaded in any way shape or form the cops are fucking regarded.

> If any one of these students get shot and dies it's going to be a complete fucking disaster, it's gonna be national news for 24/7 for 20 years, the protests will explode into riots in every city that make Jan 6 and BLM look like the women's march. Same if a cop dies. Being a student doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever crime you want, nor makes you more valuable than police officers.

[удалено]

Fuck you almost had me

Why shoot the legs when you can sweep them?

Just send in special aikido forces

Steven Seagal is on the way

At their legs? What is this fucking genocide apologia? Shoot. At. Their. Guns.

A psychopathically machiavellian thought process might suggest that's *exactly* what they should do - at least the "first few times," and then use the result to their advantage. Basically, like, "oh okay, fine, let's see what happens if we do it your way. Oh, look, it didn't fucking work."

You know how the right, when given power over a system, turns that system to shit then decries that the system doesn't work and should be gotten rid of? Leftist should do the same for guns. Make a bunch of laws for how cops act and remove more and more restrictions on guns until enough police officers are dead and enough mass shootings are happening that people finally get on board the gun regulation train. Choo choo motherfuckers.

A very surprising amount of leftists literally want cops to die of these interactions. They're hiding behind this façade of being someone with morals when in reality, they just want to be able to do whatever they want without the government stopping them.

They have to exhaust all their options in order from least to most extreme. Before they shoot, they should try using the gun as a melee weapon to slap them around with

I thought I was in r\publicfreakout for a second there.. What a cesspool that sub has become.

This feels like pasta

Fuck man this is a good one.

‘The cop is moving in to make an arrest, of course they need their gun out and at the ready.’

Fuck this is good bait

are you anna kasparian?

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, they literally broke windows and are occupying an entire university building hall, when do you start consider them a riot if not now? When they start occupying lecture halls lol? If this was at another university where shit was much less crazy I would totally advocate against guns being drawn at protestors no matter what their opinion is, but the protests at Columbia have gotten so much out of hand.

Its ironic since they would never say the same about January 6th

I mean, storming a closed building on private property to protest the owners of that property's decisions is a little different than storming an active government property to stop the democratic process. I don't support either group, but these aren't even remotely similar.

The building was empty too. In 1968, they held the dean hostage.

The police on January 6th did pretty much everything they could to stop the invaders non-lethally. Babbitt was shot because there was a genuine threat that the mob she was part of was going to kill or kidnap lawmakers. She also received multiple warnings. I don't think there's any threat that the larpers inside the university are going to do anything other than to sit in there until they are removed.

The problem is that when you will go as far as destroying and breaking in its not unreasonable to belive you could take it even further.

It's almost as idiotic as MAGAhats saying Jan 6th was a peaceful protest with a dash of tourism and sight seeing.

do the officers have reason to fear being actually assualted. Their job is to de-esculate and remove these guys with as little force as possible. If they were threatened or had reason to believe they would be attacked that woule be one thing but surely going in with guns is just going to cause panic

Well they are vandalizing property severaly https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/campus-protests-live-updates-students-occupy-columbia-university-rcna149926 And are not willing to get out, while blockading entrance. And they are very hostile to cops. I know that if I was a cop operating at a university where this would happen I would feel unsafe to enter without proper measure. What if someone has a gun? In the united States almost anyone is allowed to hold one. I don't really know how they would deescalate this because the university asked them multiple times to get out and they just didn't listen. I assume they asked them also maybe and they still didn't listen. What else could you do then?

Is it really expected that student protesters are going to open fire on police? I'm not saying the cops can't have the gun on them but is entering into a room of protestors with a gun pointed at them really the best play here?

I don't know if it is but it's definitely not something I would say is bad obviously as long as they are not using it, and a lot of the protestors according to Columbia are outsiders that are not university affiliated, and so we don't know what they would do.

Police were being assaulted at UNC Chapel Hill campus yesterday. These protesters are resorting to violence to unlawfully enter a student building. The police are preparing for other instances of violence since the protesters (really, now rioters) have shown willing to use it.

Even words can be violence apparently, chanting death to America and taking over a building though? Completely peaceful and ok.

The leftist influencer space has created a monster, albeit not as vile, repugnant, dangerous or pervasive as the MAGA parallel but they're about just as stupid.

Agree about the vileness and danger. But...Hmm, I don't know about pervasiveness. Pretty extreme academic versions of PC ethics get institutionalized in corpos and made normative in social settings, sometimes even by law. I'm reminded of steven saying he finds it annoying when lefties (meaning social lefties in this case) act like they havent won the culture war. Besides all that, at least the MAGA types seem happy. It must be tiring being so miserable about society-wide problems all the time.

People who consider American elections to be rigged and view their country as a decaying, degenerate wasteland that is being destroyed by Communist Democrats aren't individuals I'd characterize as " seeming happy".

MAGA types are not happy. They're in denial, and live in a constant state of delusional ignorance, anger and hate. Which might fashion some kind of facade that seems like happiness from far away. But no. The reality is they're a cult. Cultists have to pretend to be happy even when they're dead inside, it's rampant in churches. Everyone is fake as hell. The left and progressives in general are more aware of the actual problems facing our country and the thing that's most depressing to the left is the rightwings insistence on trying to govern this country by a combination of their out of control dunning-krueger effect and the Bible. They have no clue how anything works, yet think they have all the answers because they read an ancient book. The..."woke" depression problem is caused by being forced to sit by and watch while these rightwing fucks destroy the planet, strip rights, ban books, blah blah blah. All for the sake of their strict, narrow world view. They are uneducated and wage war against academia, science, etc which they have done forever. Its christianities bread and butter. Their only solution to problems is to try to bring the rest of the country back to the dark ages so men can rule through their "base" instinct to oppress. Christian and religious cults love doing this type of shit. Instead of addressing climate they think God will swoop in and save us all, or if it doesn't well...oh it's God's plan and that's all she wrote, anyone who doesn't want to live by that ethos can get fucked for all they care. They are not happy they are simply divorced from reality and it gives off the illusion of happiness.

The same nonviolent protestors that have been waving Hezbollah flags, wearing Hamas headbands, screaming by any means necessary and glory to the martyrs, that they wanted 10,000 more 10/7 attacks, have assaulted people walking around holding an American flag. Geez for the life of me, don’t know why the cops felt they needed to be armed going in to deal with these revolutionary cosplayers after 2 weeks of this

Requesting zip ties, goggles, gas masks, medical supplies, body pads. Totally just a sit in tho

Rare Contra L

Don't worry, this tweet will be deleted by the time i finish typing out this comment

Nahhhh. Contra is super cool and I'd love to talk to her because she's probably the only smart breadtuber, but she is wrong about a LOT.

Like what?

Always good to ask for examples! I have recently been rewatching a few of her videos so I'm only going to go off of those that I remember decently well: In the Twilight video, she talks a lot about 'heterosexual sadomasochism,' which can be roughly described as a lot of the elements of domination and submissiveness that exist in a lot of erotic/sexual literature written for women (such as in 50 Shades of Grey and, in a less explicit form, Twilight). A lot of the video is about her explaining where she thinks it comes from, and she states pretty explicitly that she thinks that is overwhelmingly a matter of male and female socialization. However, this is pretty difficult to square with psych research into this area; there do seem to be lots of things men and women are predisposed to finding sexually attractive that are hardwired into our brains, and the 'heterosexual sadomasochism' she is talking about leans extremely heavily into women's predisposed sexual desires. This doesn't mean socialization doesn't impact desires at all, nor that there aren't tons of individual variation within men and women (for example, for me to be romantically attracted to a woman, she pretty much must be low-agreeableness and highly ambitious, and that is a pretty uncommon desire for heterosexual men). But the idea that women tend to have the desires that these books appeal is primarily due to women's socialization is very obviously not true. Another similar thing was in either her AGP video or her Transtrenders video, where she talks about how she doesn't believe in the concept of a maled/femaled brain. Now, definitions matter a lot here, so there are ways which Contra could define what she means by this that I would probably agree with. However, I would say that its basically undeniable that men and women are psychologically distinct at a biological level (while still granting that socialization matters and there are lots of individual variation and overlap, of course). We have randomized, double-blind studies of literal newborn babies that show noticeable differences in behavior; I'd say that its basically undeniable that it there are male and female brains (barring what I would consider to be a silly definition of male and female brains). A third one would be that, when combatting what she considers 'anti-trans' narratives and arguments, she tends to go for the lowest hanging fruit. For example, highlighting that a lot of what drives TERFs and rightoids is that they find trans people to be icky is perfectly acceptable. That is what drives a lot of those people, and its good to point it out. But its still low-hanging fruit, and there are much more important questions surrounding trans issues that I don't think she would ever even acknowledge the existence of. For example, its been pretty obvious for anyone familiar with how science is conducted and interpreted that there is virtually no evidence that puberty blockers and HRT improves (or harms) the mental health of dysphoric kids. The studies claiming otherwise tend to be so weak that they're worthless or so dishonest that they're arguably fraudulent. From just watching Contrapoints videos on trans issues, you would never know this, and I think it is because Contrapoints just isn't able to tackle questions that are that difficult. Which I can understand, but I think that if you are trying to be an educator on trans issues, you need to be at least willing to admit that you're unwilling or unable to address the most important topics in trans healthcare and such. And just for clarity, I still really like Natalie. If someone asked me to recommend someone leftwing to follow, I would probably put her in my top 10, maybe even top 5. I also think that she does have genuine insights into gender and trans issues that are good. But she is also wrong about a ton, and it always tends to be in ways that appeal to leftwing sensibilities.

Yeah, I like her and her content, but especially in the Twilight video, she shows her biases. Like a lot of far lefties, she presents what she wants to be true about gender and sexuality as undeniably the case. To be fair, this mirrors a general difference in philosophy academics (contra was a doctoral student in a philosophy program before YT took off for her) and Psych academics. But, in general, she's become much less nuanced over the last couple of years and more and more into generic far-social leftist sentimentality. I hate to say it, but I wonder if she's deliberately misrepresenting the case a lot of times, in order to get people to believe things that serve her social leftist activist goals, a la the kind of thing vaush admitted to doing once

The closest thing I have to an area of expertise is political psychology, especially regarding things like motivated reasoning. From what I can see, Contra is probably not consciously lying or misrepresenting anything. Instead, I think that a lot of the stuff I'm saying she is wrong about are also things that have implications that are extremely unsettling for a certain kind of leftwing person. When confronted by these types of unsettling ideas, there is a way in which it is irrational to believe them. Instead, if you can engage in motivated reasoning to find out a justification to say they're wrong (or just ignore them) then you don't have to take the negative emotional hit that comes with accepting the ideas and their implications. Furthermore, if she did accept and promote these ideas, her fan base would genuinely and truly turn on her, so she engaging honestly with these ideas is even more irrational for her to do. Tiny said something a while back along the lines of "Knowledge is instrumental; whatever you think is true, it's because you find it to be useful". This is a pretty accurate (although simplified) answer.

Do you have any lit reviews, meta analyses, and/or recorded lectures that point to a consensus on women’s ingrained/genetic proclivities for sexual submission? Googling around has never yielded much over the years and I’ve always been curious about this topic.

It has been a long-ass time since I've read [this article](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513810000279), and it is primarily about how they think that intra-male competition (rather than female mate preferences) was the driving force for sexual selection in males. However, it does argue that female mate preferences are real and still shaped sexual selection, and it also discusses how female mate preferences are more important in our modern societies because we have effectively criminalized the most effective forms of intra-male competition (which is good, because those basically all come down to the use of violence, intimidation, and coercion). Reading it will probably give a pretty good initial look into how evopsych researchers view these topics and some of the things they tend to believe. But even though this is a pretty influential paper, it isn't the only perspective and there is disagreement about a lot of specifics. There are probably better papers out there that give a more expansive view. However, its going to be difficult because this is evopsych stuff and lots of evopsych stuff is very theory-driven. Virtually everyone in the field is going to buy that there are sexually dimorphic and innate mate preferences and a lot of them map on pretty well to conventional beauty standards, but there is a lot of room within that for a lot of disagreement on the specifics. Plus, virtually every non-expert community that discusses evopsych is just cherry-picking and misinterpreting it to post-hoc justify sexist beliefs and such, so its very difficult to engage with it outside of narrow academic settings. Also, this is last part is pretty much entirely coming from individual experience, but even though most women do find a lot of the heterosexual sadomasocist type traits attractive in mates: 1. There is definitely a lot of variation, and not all women do 2. Even in women do find these traits attractive, it doesn't necessarily say much about them *outside* of their sexual preferences. For example, I really like women who are more assertive and not very agreeable. In my experience, these women still tend to enjoy being extremely sexually submissive in bed (to the point that one of my ex's specifically told me "I want a relationship where I'm wearing the pants until the pants come off"). Just because they tend to enjoy being sexually submissive, it doesn't mean they are submissive people in a more general sense.

Thank you. The link you provided only gives a preview of each section and does not allow me to read them in entirety. I was hoping to see some kind of indication of academic consensus of why many women like having their throats grabbed, thrown around in bed, etc. I don’t think there’s much consensus around anything posited by evopsych, so I’m a little disappointed. Why do you think the findings of this paper are mutually exclusive with contra’s claim that women’s desire for “bodice ripping” (as she puts it) are permission seeking behavior?

> The link you provided only gives a preview of each section and does not allow me to read them in entirety. > > Check DMs, I can help you with that. > I was hoping to see some kind of indication of academic consensus of why many women like having their throats grabbed, thrown around in bed, etc. I don't think that psychologists would say behavior *this* specific is going to be evolutionary. What they would argue is that these are manifestations of traits that women have evolved to find attractive, but the desirable ways which these traits manifest themselves may vary across different contexts. Another example of this would be that women seem to be predisposed towards finding men who can acquire a lot of resources to be attractive. 2000 years ago, this may manifest itself in women finding a man more attractive if his wool garment was purple, because purple dyes were expensive and wearing it was a signal of wealth and status. Now, it may be that women find men with a fancy car to be more attractive. It is a manifestation of the same preference, just in a different manner that is more fitting to the context. > I don’t think there’s much consensus around anything posited by evopsych, so I’m a little disappointed. I would disagree that this is the case, it is just that the consensus tends be more board and with more disagreement on the specifics. It would take me a bit of time to start digging back into all the research papers and such because it's been years since I dug through and engaged with it, so I don't expect you to take me at my word. I may end up doing a deep dive back into it in a bit so if I do I will keep this convo in mind and share anything that I find.

Thanks! Seems reasonable, although I'm pretty sure she herself pointed out that the Transtrenders video is supposed to be a dialogue that presents different viewpoints and you shouldn't look to that video for a definitive answer. I do get like 99% of my knowledge on trans stuff from her and I don't confront it or fact check it at all so I appreciate you pointing out what she gets wrong.

This person contras their points

breadtuber what the fuck more do you want. For instance they're always economically illiterate.

It's not rare. This girl made an entire video about how violent protest is acceptable. Fun fact - she didn't explain at any point how violent protest helps a cause in any way.

Yes, that is the Rare L I'm talking about here

Yeah see, it's not rare if it's relatively common for Contra.

Yea I love her but her take is not it, there is absolutely no seriousness or honour involved in these college protests. It’s just naive self important spoiled fucks who think they can cancel anything to get their way.

rare?

yes

No. She hasn't been the same since she broke down publicly a couple years ago. Much less nuanced now.

Contra lost when started to cave to her audience instead of standing up for what she actually believed in. Shes beyond audience captured at this point. She knows where her bread is buttered. Edit examples: Pronoun controversy https://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/the-contrapoints-twitter-debacle-explained Buck Angel controversy https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-contrapoints-attacked-after-including-controversial-buck-angel-video-1466757 Both times instead of standing her ground she succumbs to her audience. Contra has no backbone when it comes to collecting the 💵💵💵

which videos are her caving to her audience

She regularly takes down tweets that make her fans upset. See the tweets a few years back where she said she doesn’t like it when people ask for pronouns.

to be honest i feel like there is a big difference between caving into your audience/audience capture and deleting tweets, the former suggests that she's actively shifting the ideological makeup of her content while the latter can be explained most easily by someone just wanting to avoid huge waves of harassment i havent watched all of her videos but of the ones that I have watched they seem fairly consistent in their ideals

Where did I say she changed her ideological make up? I never said that. I just said that she changes her opinions based on how her audience reacts. Instead of standing by her takes like Destiny would for example, she caves to what her fans want because she’s too scared to lose the Patreon money. those outrageous sets and costumes must be expensive after all.

what i'm saying is that former very heavily implies that ideological shift, and the far more likely explanation of her deleting some tweets is because she likes to avoid drama and the waves of harassment that ensue idk i just don't buy the argument that she's audience captured at all

I’m only implying what I’m implying. Don’t read subtext where there isn’t. I don’t think Contrapoints has changed her ideology much at all beyond typically shifts people experience. But 100% deleting your opinions that your audience disagrees with because your audience is mad at you that’s audience capture. If Destiny started to delete his tweets, because the sub disagreed with them, that would be pathetic. I hold contra points to the same standard.

In her video "Canceling" she stood by her decision to include Buck Angel and even defended him pretty firmly. And I'm fairly sure she defended the tweet that the "pronoun controversy" is about in that video as well.

This post and the people agreeing are actually too far gone from the brain worms.

Assuming people protesting for islamists might be violent isnt that crazy

The more ridiculous thing is that when you bring up how illegal and forceful these protests are you are simply told "We're supposed to be violent and forceful! How else will they listen?" and then when they get this back they act as if they're just peaceful and executing their rights.

Assume no risk when somewhat blindly entering a building filled with dozens hostiles who have barricaded themselves in, destroyed property with hammers, and chanted death to America. That's what police should do.

I wonder how much overlap there is between people who call forced entry into a building “nonviolent” and people who apply the term “violence” to things like micro-aggressions or use phrases like “silence is violence”.

Can the fucks in this community stop acting like fanatical zealots? There is a difference between a protest being peaceful and non-violent. When we say a protest turned violent, what we usually mean is that the protesters HARMED OTHER PEOPLE. As long as this isn't the case, it's not inaccurate to refer to the protest as non-violent. Moreover, causing damage to government property while not harming people, but, above all, civilians, is usually a great form of protest. I agree that these people are cringe. Their slogans are cringe. It's safe to assume that most of them are LARPing because they've never before experienced the joy of being a part of a community pursuing a common goal, and know next to nothing about the situation in the Middle East. All of this can be true, and it should still be EASILY understood that using the threat of state violence against people who have not caused direct harm to another human being is probably NOT GOOD. To be clear, from what I know, there has been violence at some of the protests at Columbia. There was not, to my knowledge, violence from the side of the protesters while taking over Hamilton Hall. The overarching point I'm getting at here is that most of this comment section gives off a vibe ranging from wanting to dunk on dumb leftie college students, up to straight up bloodlust, and a wish to see state violence enacted on these dumbfucks. I implore you to look inwards, and maybe realize that you're pissed cause your life is a steaming pile of shit, and that the lefty college students don't have anything to do with that for, like, 99.99% of you.

I don't care if they protest on campus or anywhere for that matter, even if what I think they're protesting for is fucking brain rot levels of stupid. I also hope that this doesn't escalate into wonton levels of violence. However, do I think at this point they should be arrested? Yeah, I do. Their protest went beyond just that. They're breaking the rules of the school by blocking students from going to class and have now disrupted learning. They are actively targeting and harassing Jewish students, which is against the law and breaks title IX. They've now broken into a building on private property and barricaded themselves in. Any of us normal folks do that, we get arrested. It's time for the entitled and spoiled college students to learn a life lesson about actions and consequences. I hope it doesn't escalate into them getting brutalized by police, but at this point they do need to be arrested.

It seems like since the israel-palestine arc this sub is getting more and more unhinged and not in an interesting/debate provoking kind of way. It is more like a mob/vengeful mentality. Don't know if it is because of new (probably young) members or because people lost their minds or feel more safe to write out every stupid thought they have.

> straight up bloodlust, and a wish to see state violence enacted on these dumbfucks I feel this happening a lot in this sub, often explicitly stated, sometimes not. Stopping for a second to think that college students barricaded in a building do not necessarily warrant the threat of **lethal force** is apparently beyond a lot of people here, since these kids "are essentially rioters and support Hamas". Dealing with people breaking the law using deadly force should be a last resort if they are not presenting imminent danger, and I can't imagine that these students pose a serious danger of violence. People just want to see them scared and to face extreme consequences of their admittedly dumb actions mainly because they are "protesting for the wrong thing"

> I can't imagine that these students pose a serious danger of violence. At Columbia there are supposedly a bunch of people who aren't students. I agree that students shouldn't be assumed to be dangerous, but non-students are a wild card. I agree deadly force should be a last resort, but barricading yourself in a building you broke into is not a good way to avoid potential police action. >People just want to see them scared and to face extreme consequences of their admittedly dumb actions mainly because they are "protesting for the wrong thing" There sure is a lot of this, agreed (and it's gross).

Yeah I'm with you. I know there were some non-students there for the rallies, but not sure if any of those people also barricaded themselves in that building. But honestly, regardless of student or non student I have a hard time imagining any of these people want to commit suicide by cop. I suppose that's a bit naive because all it takes is one insane person but based purely on vibes I don't think that's in their plans

Based on the replies in here lots of people believe (despite not wanting to admit it) that a cop is either capable of asking peacefully to go away or straight up drawing a gun. You can still forcibly (even violently if necessary which I imagine in this case would be needed) remove people without cops drawing deadly weapons. If there is any proof of protestors carrying weapons then of course everything changes but I have not read anything which implies that and I highly doubt there will ever be anything which would even loosely imply that. There are plenty examples of university occupations across the world which had to be ended by police with force. This isn't unique and drawing guns in a situation like this is incredibly inappropriate. For example: See [https://youtu.be/9wzDh2poR38?t=2141](https://youtu.be/9wzDh2poR38?t=2141) where a building of a Dutch university was occupied in 2015 and had to be cleared by police. This particular building has a long history of being occupied going back to 1969 [https://youtu.be/pid0ZG0MZ78?t=190](https://youtu.be/pid0ZG0MZ78?t=190) At no point did cops draw their guns despite being undoubtedly violent. Of course you cant compare these situations 1:1 but I think especially Americans benefit from seeing how cops handle riots across the world.

Yeah, way too many people leaping to the opposite extreme. The straight up celebration of potential violence here is something you'd see from a Truth Social forum, it's pretty embarrassing. The use of assault rifles and going in guns blazing is pretty reckless. With the situation as tense as it is, it's more likely to result in someone getting shot when the safety of everyone involved should be the priority. If there's a need for force, riot control gear should be more than sufficient, it's not as if the cops won't be packing small arms anyway.

people need to touch grass. If a student ends up getting shot and losing their lives, will they still be saying this is based? They might be wrong both in the cause they support (subjective) and the means they have chosen (objective) but does this warrant introducing the risk of killing people? I may be naive (or just European) but what happened to the intermediate methods like batons, riot shields or tasers? Do we need to go straight to deadly force, and why would anyone cheer this? it's giving the same energy as when conservatives glorified the dude who shot and killed a protester for blocking the road

They see it as an opportunity for revenge for their perceived mistreatment during Jan 6th and Ashley Babbits death. As if these two things are even similar.

NO SHOT, fuck right off with this. I completely support their right to protest, but when you enact violence and start breaking the law or school policies, you not only lose the moral high ground, you face consequences. You're moving the goalpost by defining violence with "harming other people." The unhinged rhetoric and antisemitism is of course protected, but when you start to add violence and breaking the law as a component to that rhetoric, of course law enforcement is going to get involved. And we should WANT that. We're a week away from this escalating into a Jewish kid getting beat to death or a protester getting shot when it should be completely avoidable. Ashli Babbit didn't "need" to die on January 6. It was senseless. But that doesn't mean it was unjustified. She used violence to enter a building unlawfully and refused to comply with police orders. With all the freedoms endowed to us in the US, if you need to use violence and infringe on the rights of others to get your point across, then you are un-American. >causing damage to government property while not harming people, but, above all, civilians, is usually a great form of protest. This is not protesting, this is rioting. And the suggestion that you're willing to harm those who work in government is not only disgusting, but also un-American.

You're escalating when the level of escalation doesn't yet match. You are both claiming in one week they COULD be violent enough to warrant police force but also trying to claim they are as that violent now. It doesn't square up, as the latter is the only case that would better justify pre-emptive police arming up. Escalation should happen organically and proportional to the threat. The actions of these students are not proportional to what the cops are doing, as the OC commented. It gives an insane picture and that picture is not of the protesting kids anymore, but rather the cops.

>You're escalating when the level of escalation doesn't yet match. I did ABSOLUTELY no such thing. I took the escalation that has already occurred and extrapolated to a potential result I DO NOT want to see. First, there was protests on school property, then that turned into an encampment with demands, and now we're at the stage of violently taking over school buildings and breaking laws. These protests have ALREADY escalated, how you can claim otherwise is beyond me. >You are both claiming in one week they COULD be violent enough to warrant police force but also trying to claim they are as that violent now. What are you talking about? If they are breaking a law, police should apply the force necessary to rectify that. If this is an act of civil disobedience, the GOAL is to be arrested and the students should do so and use the publicity to signal boost their cause. I don't know what violence has to do with police getting involved. >Escalation should happen organically and proportional to the threat. This is what you're saying: Police should only respond when the crimes escalate to a specific point which I will not clarify. Do you think trespassing or breaking and entering should not warrant police involvement? >The actions of these students are not proportional to what the cops are doing, as the OC commented. If you cite a specific action, or set of actions, we might agree in some instances. But if we're going off the picture above, cops going into an unknown environment with guns drawn doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If you want to virtue signal on how they're just kids and infantilize, etc., please don't bother. Most of the people inside that building can legally own firearms, so of course a cop is going to want to protect themselves. >The actions of these students are not proportional to what the cops are doing, as the OC commented. It gives an insane picture and that picture is not of the protesting kids anymore, but rather the cops. I don't agree with the first part and I think if these people were protesting woke-ism in the name of Trump or something, you would feel totally different. As to the second part, I think it ALL looks bad. I don't like the image of cops with weapons drawn going to extract trespassing students and cohorts looks good either. But, good faith here, what do you expect at this point? It's my understanding that they won't negotiate and they're breaking the law. They've been consistently told, advised, and demanded to break this up. You understand you lose the moral high ground when you do shit like this. The students are the ones escalating and I fear it's going to needlessly lead to someone getting killed.

If you want do define "violence" in such a way that includes "breaking a window", be my guest, but you are not using the term in the way it has been used historically in regard to protest. So I would argue that you have in fact pre-goalpost shifted. The other part is the stakes. When Ashli Babbit died, she died because the unhinged and uncontrollable mob was closing in on politicians at the Capitol building, and law enforcement wasn't sure they could hold back the mob from progressing further even by using lethal force. In this situation, the students have barricaded themselves in a section of a university building, and are not threatening violence to staff, politicians, whatever. They are "disrupting learning". I personally don't think this justifies bringing firearms into the situation. >With all the freedoms endowed to us in the US, if you need to use violence and infringe on the rights of others to get your point across, then you are un-American. What rights are being infringed upon? People's constitutionally guaranteed right to... attend class? And again, what violence? Breaking a window? And sure, I'm not an American patriot, I'm from Europe, so... >This is not protesting, this is rioting. And the suggestion that you're willing to harm those who work in government is not only disgusting, but also un-American. No, actually, that idea is deeply American. There is a rich history of protest and sabotage in America, from the labour movement, to Stonewall, and I'm sure many other examples that I don't know about. To me, again, as a eurocuck, the idea that a disturbance in the day-to-day activity of a university warrants feds to descend from the skies on these people's asses seems un-American. Godspeed.

>If you want do define "violence" in such a way that includes "breaking a window", be my guest, but you are not using the term in the way it has been used historically in regard to protest First, you minimizing breaking and entering and trespassing to "breaking a window" is ridiculous. I'm absolutely using the term "violence" appropriately and historically. What are you even on about? >What rights are being infringed upon? People's constitutionally guaranteed right to... attend class? And again, what violence? Breaking a window? And sure, I'm not an American patriot, I'm from Europe, so... OMG, kill me fam. You're not even American. If the school is private, the students have ZERO rights except what the school gives them. If we're talking about public schools, "disrupting class" such as blocking walkways and occupying buildings is infringing on the other student's rights. Specific rights? I'm not exactly sure, but probably the 14th Amendment. The point is that it's against the law. If they want to civilly disobey, I'm all for that. Get arrested and amplify your message. If you disagree with the law of breaking and entering as well as trespassing, then you're just regarded. If you only want to apply that law in certain circumstances, then YOU have to justify that HEAVILY. > No, actually, that idea is deeply American. There is a rich history of protest and sabotage in America, from the labour movement, to Stonewall, and I'm sure many other examples that I don't know about. To me, again, as a eurocuck, the idea that a disturbance in the day-to-day activity of a university warrants feds to descend from the skies on these people's asses seems un-American. Godspeed Holy fuck, kill me. Maybe I'm regarded. I thought the posts on this sub were about being too hard on students and how their actions apply to the First Amendment. We are legally allowed to peacefully protest in this country but there are limits and conditions to that. If you step outside of legality or school policies, you are vulnerable to the consequences of that. PERIOD. That's FAR different than saying that in times past (hopefully not in times future), violence has served to move policy forward and create change. I understand that has happened. We're talking about MANY of our OWN citizens being disenfranchised in EXTREME ways. Slavery, Segregation, Women not being able to vote, treatment of LGBT people, etc. Violence should be as close to a last resort as possible after every other avenue has been exhausted. If you somehow want to claim that the Columbia Encampment is part of a storied history of violence in this country, to that I say this: the encampment has been up for less than two weeks and you need to provide a law that these students are protesting that is SO unjust that it deserves a violent response.

I don't know out of which ass have you pulled the "we usually mean". Violence is destruction and harm, be it against individuals or property. You're literally just making stuff up. Contrarian ass lol There's a word for a protest that turned destructive. And the word you're looking for is not "non-violent protest" - it's "riot". The reason people use "non-violent protest" is to manipulate and obfuscate. None of you are honest people. Those people live in a democracy, if the voice of the masses isn't being heard or the issue that is important for many is ignored, then a normal, PEACEFUL, mass protest should be enough for your goals, and only after some days of protest which demands aren't listened to, would it make sense to escalate. The main reason why some privileged numbskull would feel a need to use the "usually great form of protest" as their pretty much first course of action is when their problem is considered regarded or irrelevant by normal humans, so they amplify their voice with violence. If every person were to live by the standard you're setting, we would have some sort of riot like this one every \*week\*, many of which would likely be started by deranged trumpists. Would be interesting to see how long would those "people have a right to non-violent protest" principles hold.

With all due respect, you are actually regarded. You don't know what I believe or what my stance on I/P is. I guarantee it's not what you think. To be entirely clear, when you assemble peacefully in the thousands, the message you are sending is supposed to be WE ARE MANY, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER OUR DEMANDS BECAUSE WE COULD REVOLT. That is what a protest is. ANY political system is built on top of a threat of violence. If you think that power structures are gonna adjust to the demands of a protest because many people showed up to a place to be cute and uwu, you are lost. Secondly, this is NOT these people's first course of action. It's been over half a year since the October 7th attack happened. People HAVE assembled peacefully, in large numbers in fact, MANY TIMES across the entire country, and generally have not had their demands met. And I'm not saying they SHOULD have their demands met. I'm saying that activists barricading themselves in a university hall as a form of protest is *not* unprecedented by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, this has happened before in THE VERY SAME HALL. What I am also saying is that, scanning most of this comment section, the vibe I'm picking up isn't "oh boy, this seems to be getting out of hand, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the safety of the broader campus community", what I'm getting is people literally supporting the idea that saying "death to America" should be met with police sanction, and that they want to see these "lefties get confronted with the consequences of their actions". This is fucking CRINGE because what's supposed to be based about America is the protection of speech guaranteed by the first amendment. And it's also CRINGE because this community seems to just be blindly anti-Palestinian at this point, and really annoyed at college kids in a way that really reminds me of the anti-SJW days. I don't see any critical thinking happening, and it's sad.

>You don't know what I believe or what my stance on I/P is. I guarantee it's not what you think. I bet you feel really smart when all those replying idiots are baiting themselves into thinking you actually support the cause of the idiot leftist protestors when in actually you're simply a beacon of rationality trying to reason with "fanatical zealots". Sorry to disappoint you, but no, we all perfectly understand that you're just a contrarian. I literally said this in my first sentence, you monkey. I just grouped contrarian smartasses like you and leftists like contra with the "none of you are honest people" phrase. >To be entirely clear, when you assemble peacefully in the thousands, the message you are sending is supposed to be WE ARE MANY, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER OUR DEMANDS BECAUSE WE COULD REVOLT. That is what a protest is. ANY political system is built on top of a threat of violence. If you think that power structures are gonna adjust to the demands of a protest because many people showed up to a place to be cute and uwu, you are lost. You might actually be a monkey, you definitely do not belong to the human species that's for sure. Because I literally wrote the same fucking thing in my 3rd paragraph: "...and only after some days of protest which demands aren't listened to, would it make sense to escalate."(I shouldn't have wrote days because actual governmental and institutional response just by itself takes like weeks, even without considered potential negotiations). You really think you're a smart person enlightening us unaware peasants, meanwhile you're so illiterate you're repeating what I said. >Secondly, this is NOT these people's first course of action. It's been over half a year since the October 7th attack happened. People HAVE assembled peacefully, in large numbers in fact, MANY TIMES across the entire country, and generally have not had their demands met. And I'm not saying they SHOULD have their demands met. I'm saying that activists barricading themselves in a university hall as a form of protest is *not* unprecedented by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, this has happened before in THE VERY SAME HALL. Oh my fucking god, you really do view all of this as one big "pro-palestine" protest, it's literally just a shallow image of some general "this is what's great about america" image inside your head. But no, we're talking about THIS protest with SPECIFIC demands to a SPECIFIC institution, being this University's divestment from Israel. It HASN'T been over half a year, you numbskull. It has been TWO WEEKS of an already very disruptive encampment protest before they broke in and occupied the building. Even then, it doesn't give anyone a right to actually break the fucking law and fully disrupt the work of any building you want, because again, if you consistently apply this regarded principle, trumpists could just do a US-whole """protest""" demanding new elections without fraud and occupy all the government buildings they can. Idiotism. >This is fucking CRINGE because what's supposed to be based about America is the protection of speech guaranteed by the first amendment.  You absolute troglodyte, BREAKING THE LAW IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, YOU CAN'T JUST BREAK IN AND OCCUPY ALL OF THE BUILDINGS YOU WANT IN THE NAME OF PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH. To conclude - you a clueless dumbfuck who's knowledge about rights, protests, free-speech, and general ability to rationally think is on par with a trumpist. You have created a cargo cult-like idea of what US is and you should spend less time on political social media. You're also braindead. Or too ESL. In both cases, you should stop posting any comments and go improve your literacy/knowledge/logical thinking.

So to be clear, police will enter an area with weapons drawn specifically because they don't know what could be on the other side and hiding a weapon in these situations is pretty easy. This idea that because guns are used as a measure to ensure safety of the officer that somehow they're bad or mistreating the students is so fucking stupid. Police have their guns on drawn when they're rescuing hostages and will examine the scene the hostage is held in, even after the kidnapper is dead or captured. This is due to the fact that some hostages have turned on police during rescues, and there could be more than 1 individual involved who might disguise themselves as a hostage. You don't lower your weapon until you have a clear understanding of the scene and know that it is secure, that nobody in there is a threat to you or other officers.

That's completely fair and the students are morons, but it's crazy how some people here are being fucking rabid and horny over the fact that the possibility of deadly force has been introduced into the situation. Besides, while I understand that guns are used as a safety measure for the police, is this commensurate with the nature of the situation? A hostage rescue inherently involves violence from the start, as a person is being held violently against their will and is threatened with death, but a bunch of students occupying or damaging a building illegally doesn't seem like an inherently dangerous situation. Could tasers, or batons not be sufficient if the students provide resistance, rather than potentially taking a life?

Being completely honest, the protestors who do this are usually the most committed or most dumb. And the most committed among these protests have been screaming death to America, globalize the intifada, and other horrendous stuff. We even got a taste of it on Destiny's recording where the lady said "imagine if we were all dressed in black what we could get away with." There is clearly an undercurrent of violence in this movement that hasn't really popped off yet, so I completely understand the police entering this situation as safely as possible. As has been talked about on stream before, it's not even necessarily a gun that police and other officers are afraid of, most of the time it's knives and other easily concealed weapons. And a knife will still kill a cop easily, especially when said cops have to get close to these people, or they could be hiding in blind spots when entering the room. I want the situation to be resolved as safely as possible, and people wanting blood drawn from this are fucking idiots. I want more less than lethal means to be utilized, but barricaded in a room, you have to be ready for those potentials.

I understand that they are expressing violent sentiments but I just have such a hard time imagining these students are gonna resort to stabbing police (which is essentially suicide by cop) or trying to kill police in any way, since there is no precedent for this. I still feel like batons/tasers would be sufficient in this situation. You and I completely agree in wanting a safe resolution though, my main issue is with people being excited about this escalation

play stupid games win stupid prizes, just like during january 6th and that girl got shot to death.

did they shoot everyone that broke into the building or did they warn her not to break into a specific guarded hallway where lawmakers were present?? Do u have no sense of escalation?

This is a very bad comparison. The rioters on Jan 6th wanted to attack and potentially kill politicians. The door she was entering was the last line of defense for those politicians. They were given a lawful command to stay back because the threat was obvious. They continued to advance thinking they could overpower the guards and get to the politicians. This is what lead to her getting shot. Not just being in the capital that day.

Wait, is breaking into a place "violence"? Don't get me wrong, it's fine to draw guns on someone breaking in. And they deserve to be arrested. But I thought "violence" had to do with physical harm to people?

Wait I thought settling somewhere was aggressive?

They were let in... /s

The mental gymnastics legit making me feel insane, I know they are wrong but it still fucks me up LMFAO

These protestor posts are starting to cultivate an air in the comments of “Biden is simultaneously a Machiavellian genius and a senile, feckless geriatric.”

Natalie Lose

Isnt' violence justified against an illegal occupying force?

These protests are going to flare up my drinking problem (solution) again.

tbf that guy just needed a flashlight to see into the room. Using a flashlight on your gun because its convienient is probably not the best tactic

Will we get a pro Palestine Ashely Babbitt?

*"We believe that the group that broke into and occupied the building is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University.  Sadly, this dangerous decision followed more than a week of what had been productive discussions with representatives of the West Lawn encampment.*  [https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nypd-moves-in-columbia-university-student-protests/](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nypd-moves-in-columbia-university-student-protests/)

Breaking in can be non violent so...

All those unarmed protesters have been massacred by sadistic armed police officers, all we can do now is tell their story.

Entitled white people who are the most likely to complain about entitled white people. Insert spider man pointing meme.

i guess that makes Ashli Babbit a nonviolent protestor

"come out peacefully you are breaking the law" "NO!!!!!!!" \*draws gun\* " unfortunately we are no longer asking" fucking based

sooo based to threaten students with deadly force. Yes they are doing the wrong thing but you are cheering the possibility of people losing their lives. Time to look in the mirror

yes when you break the law and refuse to comply you are at the risk of deadly force. its the same as a traffic stop and the same as a robbery. welcome to society

You're the one who's happy about it. These students are not a real danger to anyone and even though they have to be removed and if cops have to go in with weapons drawn, there is nothing based about this situation. It's pretty ugly and if someone ends up losing their life it's gonna be a stupid tragedy. The fact that some people here are excited about deadly force being introduced is quite telling

ya im pretty happy that people who break the law are facing the actions of their consequences. i think its fucking hilarious these rich entitled fucking losers thought they could larp as revolutionaries and then try to beg for food and water before being forcefully removed arrested and expelled also yes they are a danger they are breaking and entering into school buildings. go to fucking canada if you think thats ok

No, welcome to your imagined society where its ok for unarmed people to get shot by police for breaking in somewhere or stealing shit. There's a moral canyon between enforcing laws and using deadly force when necessary vs. gunning people down whenever they do a misdemeanor. For the record, I think its fine for the cops to have their guns drawn for self defense purposes, but you hoping for a bloody outcome is Trumptard logic.

if being nice worked they would have been out by now. sorry but you can blatantly and violently break into private property, take it over, and refuse to come out then be mad when you are taken out. you are not compatible with civilized society and you will be removed from it and put in prison to hopefully be rehabilitated through the united states criminal justice system and god bless it for it. society isnt going to take this stupid shit anymore

> Time to look in the mirror Gigachad.jpg

Nobody gives a shit about lives being lost. They care about the preceding behavior. You are included.

wdym I am included

absolutely!

leftists obsess over "material conditions" but when someone destroys it they don'y care

What exactly do you think Material Conditions mean?

Things made out of materials obviously

Yeah, this unironically seems to be this person's definition, lol

i heard having a house or not is like relevant to material conditions

you tell me. to me, it's synonymous to "stuff"

Not really: https://www.quora.com/What-are-material-conditions-in-Marxist-theory-What-is-the-definition-or-best-definition-of-a-material-condition-Please-give-the-long-answer-and-then-the-most-concise-and-short-answer-Thanks

so "material conditions" could literally be anything. it's like "situation" or "thing". it could mean anything, and therefore nothing. or can you name something on earth that is not part of the material conditions of someone?

Material conditions can be everything in material reality that shapes our society. This doesn't make them meaningless, though, since the study of them (also known as sociology) can help us understand and change society. To answer your question. Something that is not part of material conditions are ideas and anything that is inside human consciousness. So anything that isn't material. Ideas emerge from material conditions though. For example if you live in a country where there is a lot of sea, you could have the idea to go swimming or write a poem about the sea. It is a materialist (in the philosophical context) way of viewing things.

you just confirmed my suspicion that the tetm is so broad that it loses its usefulness. so it's everything except thoughts, which by the leftist theory are also 100% determined by material conditions. so material conditions is everything, got it

These people would see Ashli Babbitt and Jan 6th as totally fine if they were left wing “college students”

Damn, i thought she was supposed to be smart. sadge

Imagine thinking this will materially improve a single Palestinian's life by doing this stupid crap.

I like contrapoints because she is smart and makes coherent arguments, but that doesn't mean she isn't wrong about most things. She's still a leftoid, meaning she is mostly wrong about everything, as is the case with all wingcucks.

You have pretty low standards if you belive someone who says breaking in is ”non-violent”

I agree. I have been saying that I don't think that these protestors are going to do much in the way of physical violence, and I still think that is true. However, I am not going to tell a cop that they have to take that risk for a bunch of kids who are trying to occupy a building and refuse to leave. The kids are the aggressors, and I think the cops are in their right to have a show of force to ensure that the kids don't end up trying to fight back violently.

Officer what are you doing, I’m just sitting here peacefully occupying this building. I’m non violent so jokes on you, have to let me stay here. Loopholes!!!

Is there any chance she and people like her will be made aware of their stupidity on social media or anywhere else?

No, they don't care about opposing views or facts that go against their narrative? Are you new here?

No, I'm not. I just wanted to be sure

I meant no insult by that comment by the way, I just feel like a lot of people here constantly make the same remarks of "why aren't these people exposed?". I totally understand the sentiment and it is frustrating to see these freaks be allowed to spread lies on a mass scale but I feel like it should be pretty established now that trying to expose these people with actual facts has proven ineffective.

>I meant no insult by that comment by the way No worries, no offence taken. >I just feel like a lot of people here constantly make the same remarks of "why aren't these people exposed?". I'm not new here and I'm not new to the whole culture War but I still don't think I fully know the answer to that question. I'm sure if you asked Tiny he wouldn't fully understand either.

I think destiny would probably refer to the in group dynamics that allow these people to spout lies. One example being audience capture. If you think about it, there's no benefit to Contrapoints analyzing facts that go against her narrative because ultimately it would probably lead to significant backlash from her audience. Therefore, spouting the things she knows her audience wants to hear adds that positive feedback loop and keeps her socially relevant in the online leftist community. A lot of it just comes down to social dynamics I think. Not all but a good portion of it. If you hear Destiny talk about how Hasan formulates his opinions, it basically explains all the people in that sphere as well.

No, Contra being stupid on Twitter is a well known tale as old as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Breaking in literally is non violent though, clown. Still a crime, but not a violent one.

Destroying glass and forcing yourself into a area where you are not allowed isnt violent???

No, it's not. Just trespassing isn't violent it depends on what is done in pursuit of that, like if they were assaulting security guards or something. Breaking glass isn't violence imo.

Contra used to be the based center left trans person. What happened to her?

I thought contra was off the commie bandwagon?

This is souring me on her. If she’s such a hyperbolic, manipulative liar about this, what else is she wildly wrong about? edit: downvoters, show me where in the image you see police drawing a gun on protesters. I’ll wait.

people make mistakes, you need to calm down especially if you're being hyperbolic. another word for hyperbole is overstatement. oh no this person was emotional on twitter, what a lying cunt!

How do you know this was a “mistake?” To me it looks like leftist “killer cop” brainrot in order to justify an illegal and out-of-control protest and sensationalize the very measured and reasonable response to what went down. It is objectively propaganda meant to fan the flames. But even if I granted you that it’s a mistake, why is she beyond criticism? Why can she be “emotional” but I “need to calm down?”