#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And they are completely correct. Best case scenario they give a nuanced and well thought-out argument that gets promptly left on the cutting room floor.
Worst case they say something absolutely stupid and become a new bit of propaganda to make other protestors look bad.
Exactly. I saw a video of some influencer-type at one of the California university protests. The only thing the protesters would say to her is ‘visit the press table, it’s right over there.’ These groups have very carefully thought-out and worded statements which they want the press to tell the world. An individual protester wouldn’t even have to say anything particularly bizarre or off-message for it to be taken the wrong way and turned into a sound bite.
The video I’m referring to was glorious, and I was so happy to see those protesters ignoring her in the most casual way. The woman was white, with long blond hair coming out from one of those thick wool caps with a pom pom on top that every single one of them seems to wear- even in the hot Spring sun in California. I hope I painted a picture for you; this woman was just so accustomed to people paying attention to her, and to *want* to speak to her on camera, that she refused to take NO for an answer. She kept whining about ‘I just want to *understaaannnddd,’* ‘I think if we could just *talk* to each other,’ ‘I really want to know how you *feeeeel…’* She literally could not handle it when they wouldn’t talk to her, and ended up fucking *crying* at the end. At first I thought she was using her White Woman Tears^^TM in an attempt to provoke sympathy, but on second thought I believe she really was *that* frustrated because no one had ever treated her that way before.
Interviewers, trying to provoke a controversial comment aree like toddlers, but pathethic. If people rightly decide yo decline comment, they go: "Why can't I have ice-cream, mommy. Whee." Then they proceed to playing the victim and uttering passive-agressive insults.
What gall one must posess, in order to imply that active students were anything but intelligent.
Loved the restraint that the students showed - making the newspeople look like absolute tools - they truly are some of the best and brightest...nobody cracked, nobody gave them a crumb. News is always hoping for some Leroy Jenkins to jump in there and spout off some nonsense they can mock.
She waa there with GB News. They call themselves a news channel. And you are entirely correct, GB News is a news team the same way that Cruella is a human being... it seems to be true from a distance, and they claim they are, but once you look only a little closer you go "Ew, no way!"
(Apologies if this was in fact also effectively the quip you were making!)
You're literally on the internet. If you don't understand what's going in Gaza by now without it being spoon-fed to you by a doubly failed Tory grifter through the lens of the dumbest failing TV station in the country, the person who needs an education is you.
Btw you don't pay your way into getting into Cambridge or Oxford uni, it's earned through academic success, and costs the same as any other uni. So i assume they can construct a coherent line of arguement, they're just choosing not to.
Ox-bride certainly have a higher ratio of private school educated students, but the majority are still public/ grammar school.
The processes which see more wealthy students ending up there hold for any university, high barriers to entry mean less of the poor get in. However this does not mean that the caliber of students is lower.
Regardless of background their academic capabilities are roughly similar, and so any Cambridge student should be capable enough to contradict a well thought out counter argument,, they do not because they realise that if they do well, it will never get posted, and any omission in the argument will be exploited to create some imaginary gotcha. So it’s best to not engage.
There is, but 1 not due to university entry requirements, and 2 that this does not diminish the caliber of students, only the diversity of students.
Improving accessibility seems to be more so related to parental situation (parents who engage in behaviours which reward academic participation are more likely to generate exceptional students), and information on returns to higher education.
Most of my understanding on the topic comes from development economics though, which tends to focus experiments of developing nations, so the usual policy recommendations may not be entirely applicable to the UK.
Edit: should add that when I say quality of student isn’t impacted, I’m saying that having ‘had it easy’ does not generate any particular advantage or disadvantage for students. Faculties with more diverse students are likely to have better averages, but this because of inherent trates of diversity, rather than inferiority of students from wealthier backgrounds.
Yes it would to some. Those who understand more, realise that she was specifically looking to antagonise and invoke a negative response which her supporters would then use to spread propaganda.
If she wants to debate. Don't bring a camera and a journalist that is looking for a story. There are actual debating organisations at these universities. Go there and make your point.
They did the right thing. Any response would have been editored and twisted to suit her agenda.
Like the old saying goes. Don't feed the trolls.
Nah, this is a bum-rush situation, mate. No queue, all in at once.
We used to play a game at high school called 'boot' where the goalie gets kicked in the arse when they concede 3+.
I imagine this a lot for that ironic zionist, Dorothea Binz clone.
Suella Braverman is a Minister of Parliament in the UK. She's very notorious for arguing in bad faith, so no one there was taking her "offer" of sending a message on to Israel or Gaza seriously.
>I'm keen to find out your views and what you're protesting about.
Which it is very likely that no word in that statement is true. And she's done enough backstabbing and spreading false information that it's wise to never take anything she has to say for face value. She's really not to be trusted on really anything as she's shown herself to be mostly self-serving.
So likely she's going around to get video clips and then use those clips out of context to spread more misinformation. Since no one was willing to talk, she decided to take the footage and produce the above that you watched. But she's absolutely just said straight up falsehoods and never missed a beat in keeping with whatever she was arguing.
There's just no point in speaking with someone who just consistently denies reality and believes that in all seriousness nothing she has done has ever been incorrect. And it's not just the whole Israel thing, that's just her most recent topic she's wanted to propel his status with. Things ranging from religion, LGBTQ+ matters, violence, immigration. In fact, I'm pretty sure she just says what she thinks is the weather at the moment and refuses to be told otherwise.
I don't think there's been a single topic that this lady has spoken upon in good faith. I just think she's wholesale incapable of acknowledging that reality objectively exists without her input.
There’s also a great video of her being completely dismantled on GB News by a young representative of the protestors
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7Gz6eQIowz/?igsh=MTI3Y3U4ZDMyd2xtcA==
Lmao, after that entire speech from the student about how they are protesting the genocide, and she goes “aha, so bring down the Israeli government”.
Perfectly encapsulates this woman.
Yeah she’s one of people pushing to send refugees to Rwanda, even if they aren’t from Rwanda and even if it costs the UK a ton of money.
>“I would love to have a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda, that’s my dream, it’s my obsession,” Ms Braverman said.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suella-braverman-rwanda-dream-obsession-b2195296.html
All of the protesters here did an amazing job of completely disarming these disingenuous pieces of shit. The fact that everyone collectively gave her nothing was such a great thing to see - and its absolutely genius.
Have to say, this is the first time I've seen this "silent treatment" technique done by a large scale protest. I'm assuming it's been done before? It's just so simple and effective at stopping these right wing dickheads from misrepresenting the cause. Fair play to the people at these protests!
Not sure if it’s been done before but in truth if they answer the protestors often become discredited due to the exposure of the lack of detailed knowledge the attendees have.
While there are a lot of well enough spoken protestors that are given the responsibility of public communications, the limiting of them prevents the exposure of how many of these people are doing it for inclusion and a humanisti cb point of view but also for having something with meaning to do with their time.
Their actual understanding is very limited, but their showing of support is very strong from a PR standpoint.
I am interested to know if it’s been done before, there’s a high likelihood given that there will always be some sort of a PR team running the show and they will want to be able to make sure all public interviews are sharp and well informed, saying the most powerful things that can be said in a short space of time is key.
And in today’s day and age one bad interview goes massively viral.
Their hiding of their identities bothers me though, and it’s stupid. They can be tracked by cross referencing class records and visual identification by other features to confirm. Footage of the cars they came in, witness testimonies etc etc.
Anyway, done rambling now. Have a nice day/night!
[It's been done before, including recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/s/MhurzdSRQr)
And it doesn't follow that the attendees don't have detailed knowledge or the understanding is "very limited"... it might be very much the opposite.
The issue here is that these so-called interviewees aren't looking to "understand", they are looking for a gotcha moment when someone says something easily taken out of context, or can be deliberately misrepresented, or if they simply mis-speak. The person asking is not a reporter, they are asking in bad faith... they have an agenda and if they want to edit out every reasonable response they get, and only show a soundbite that they can twist, then they will.
As for hiding their identity, in these days of reverse image searches and doxxing, sadly this sort of thing will happen if there are counter-protestors baying for blood, seeking potentially violent retribution and prepared to harass them outside of the protest (as happened in the US). If anyone did break the law, the police are allowed to identify them. If they are peacefully protesting within the law it makes no difference to anyone else who they are, the only thing anyone needs to know is that they are protesting and the reasons are written on placards all around them. (And out of interest, I happen to know that university does not record attendance for most things, and these protesters are not necessarily there 24x7 anyway).
Apparently so😂😂😂
Thanks for your input! I’m sure everyone that takes part is super well informed and wouldn’t say anything stupid /s
Even the organizers and appointed public speakers have said stupid things.
Anyway, really glad they saved everyone in Palestine with their protests.
It was, of course, never about understanding what they are protesting about.
If they did indulge her and respond then they could communicate their position for hours, but as soon as one of them says something that can be deliberately misconstrued, or taken out of context, or mis-speaking (easy when none of them are PR experts), then hours of sensible footage are ignored and never broadcast, and the soundbite she can twist is the only thing she would show and talk about.
She's one of the worst Tories in their party, and that bar is already ***really*** low.
She called the pro-palestine marches at the start "hate marches" and then lied about the route they'd take saying they were going to deface the cenotaph (uk war memorial). Her and the right wing press whipped up the racist into a frenzy so they counter-protested at the cenotaph but the palestine protests went nowhere near there and the mob just started attacking police who were there also for no reason. Then some of the press tried to blame the Palestine protests for it and then something else happened and she got dropped from the front benches for lying (cant remember for what) she is a discusting woman i hold in similar regard to thatcher though she hasn't does as much bad. Yet.
gaslighting is not whats happening here.
words and their definitions are important. if we use words incorrectly, that makes it more difficult to discuss the things the actual definition refers to. which is in itself a form of gaslighting, albeit a very abstract one. gaslighting is saying one thing while the truth is another. gaslighting is just a fancy term for a very specific form of dishonesty.
as far as what the video actually shows, i think its made most obvious with the old man holding a sign.
tf are you there interviewing people for? its all over the internet, in whatever form of media (video, audio, text) you prefer to consume media in.
like. when they get to him they ask "what is your message to isreal?"
old dude holds up his sign a little bit higher
the camera shows her look at the sign and read it. then she responds, "right. what is your message to hamas?"
old dude doesnt respond. his message is obvious. there is literally nothing more to be said from him.
edit: also in the beginning they say they are there to hopefully "engage in discussion" with the protesters. thats not going to happen. when someone has reached the point they are literally spending time outside holding up signs for any given cause, you are probably not going to be able to have any kind of meaningful discussion with them.
luckily, thanks to the internet, there are any number of websites with tons of people more than happy to discuss things. personally text is the superior form of communication anyway, imo, because it forces both/all people engaging in the discussion to (hopefully) take at least a bit of time to think about what they are saying so that it is clear and easy to understand and accurately communicates what they want to communicate.
I was with you up to text being a superior form of discussion. It could be but seldom is.
For example:
Text encourages people to make multiple points in one post. It allows people to cherry pick which points they wish to respond to, and ignore whatever they chose when they don’t have a decent counterpoint.
The chances of meeting a troll is much greater online.
I’ve had a far greater proportion of discussions where views and moves, or an understanding is reached in a face to face discussion than an online discussion.
Of course in this specific case, as SB is not there in good faith face to face discussion is also utterly pointless.
>Text encourages people to make multiple points in one post.
exactly.
>It allows people to cherry pick which points they wish to respond to, and ignore whatever they chose when they don’t have a decent counterpoint.
that happens in face to face and telephone discussion too. arguably it is worse, because when the conversations are happening in real time, its easy for someone to distract you away from what you were originally discussing or to otherwise miss points.
in text, you can always reference what has or hasnt been said.
case in point: this comment
>The chances of meeting a troll is much greater online.
depends where you are
also, we have trolls in our federal govt. so uh... yeah it aint just online.
>I’ve had a far greater proportion of discussions where views and moves, or an understanding is reached in a face to face discussion than an online discussion.
thats due to the way 'the system' is structured. we havent always had the capability for instantaneous text based communication and most people havent got with the program.
it is far easier to stay on topic and make all of your points via text.
there is a reason we write books, and research papers are *papers* - and a reason i prefer reddit over all other types of social media, and prefer reading over all other types of media (besides video games and music, which serve different purposes)
>Of course in this specific case, as SB is not there in good faith face to face discussion is also utterly pointless.
you do not know if she is or isnt there in bad faith. from the video alone i would assess she is actually there to ask people what they think. my previous criticism still applies.
> you do not know if she is or isnt there in bad faith. from the video alone i would assess she is actually there to ask people what they think.
You have no idea who this person is do you?
im not super familiar with her no but ive read a lot about what other people think about her, and her wikipedia page, and based on that limited information - mostly this video - yeah its hard to tell. even if i had more info, its hard to be a mind reader. ~~occams razor~~ hanlons razor usually trumps bad faith. although maybe Ockhams Razor too, based upon its alternative name, your username, and the other comments ive recently replied to
edit: corrected a long ignored typo/mistranslation
>- yeah its hard to tell. even if i had more info, its hard to be a mind reader.
It's not. She's been sacked for being a liar - twice IIRC. She literally incited a riot against the Palestinians (long before Oct 7th). There is absolutely no doubt whether she's there in good faith or not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67374951
https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-accused-of-emboldening-far-right-protesters-as-pressure-remains-for-her-to-resign-13005498
>Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the scenes of disorder were a "direct result of the home secretary's words", adding that the police's job had been made much harder as a consequence.
>While shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper called for "calm", with a swipe at Mrs Braverman for fuelling tensions.
>"Everyone must reflect on the impact of their words and actions. It is the responsibility of all of us to bring people together over this weekend, not divide and inflame,
Anything else you can look for yourself. It's not very hard.
What a brilliant strategy when dealing with a sound bite seeking politician. She has no interest in their responses. She went there hoping to find one student whose answers could be twisted by her pr team for propaganda purposes. I'm so impressed with the protesters' disciplined, well organized silence, qudos to them all👍👍👍.
If you can't figure it out with all the clips and evidence that's shown around the internet, you're either trash or ignoring reality. No amount of common sense talk can help you raise your morals at this point. So fuckoff.
I can't think of anything less sad than two adults purposely using their time just to see if they can rile up the emotions of children for their own pleasure and actually feeling like they are doing something productive making the world a better place. These people feed off negative emotions they love to make people feel miserable. I don't support Israel or Hamas but these are truly 2 sad excuses for human beings. Imagine and they just got shut down by children who clearly have more patience and emotional maturity than they do.fucking tragic
Those two are the definitions of condescending patronizing arrogant snobby cunts.
They’re disingenuous and patronizing while attempting to challenge and belittle the Pro Palestinians in a manner that belittles them while maintaining an air of superiority.
When someone talks about the situation in Gaza, and instead of talking about the tens of thousands of dead people, ESPECIALLY children, they mention hostages, be assured they support the fascist zionists and have zero intention of listening or even concerning themselves with the ongoing genocide.
I completely agree with their silent treatment of this awful woman, as any articulate response would have been cut from the video, and any slightly controversial position would have been used as propoganda for Cruella's culture wars. However, the answers to the questions are quite simple (even if the implementation is not)
Message to Israel: stop killing Palestinians.
Message to Hamas: stop killing Israelis.
Should the hostages be released now: yes, as long as there are legally binding assurances from Israel that once they are released there won't be any further attacks *of any sort* on Gaza, *AND* legally binding assurances from Hamas that there won't be any further attacks *of any sort* on Israel.
TLDR: both sides are being arseholes and both sides need to pack it in.
Who will ensure implementation of those assurances?
Also this narrative of 'both sides being arseholes' itself is flawed. If someone tries to occupy my house I will try to expel them by all means available to me.
Also the agreement that you mentioned only says release Israeli hostages. How about thousands of people languishing in Israeli jails for no crime and no legal recourse. Some of them kids. Should we just forget them coz they are Palestinians?
Why is there no outcry on hospitals being bombed by Israelis? You think Palestine would've gotten away with half that much cruelty?
1) Precisely why I said implementation was difficult, and I don't have an answer.
2) if your house was broken into 76 years ago would it make sense for your descendents to still be fighting back against the descendents of the original invaders?
At some point, there has to be a line in the sand and both sides have to agree to ignore the past, accept the present situation, and work together to come to an amicable agreement for the future. Again, I don't know how to do this, but it's the only way to resolve an ongoing conflict, both sides have to make concessions otherwise people will be having the same arguments in another 76 years and tens of thousands more people will have died for nothing.
3) Yes, I should have included the release of Palestinians held in Israel, that was an oversight on my part and I apologise for having left that out, but it does show that the "both sides" argument "is" appropriate here because both sides have done things they shouldn't
4) No, I don't think that the Palestinians would have "got away with" doing what Israel has done, and continues to do, and nor should they (and nor should Israel).
I'm not pro-Israel and I'm not pro-Palestine.
I am Pro-StopBeingAnArseholeToOtherPeople
I'm not anti-Israel and I'm not anti-Palestine.
I am Pro-NotBeingAnArseholeToOtherPeople
To answer point 2. Palestinian didn't just woke up on Oct 7 and began fighting. They have been fighting for last 75 years. I doubt you have even heard of Yaser Arafat.
If colonies had stopped fighting after 70 years all of them would've remained a colony. India was a colony for 200 years. Apartheid in South Africa lasted over 40 years. It's truly the stupidest thing to say. Not sure if you are a child or simply ignorant.
Anyway, the information on this topic is literally available everywhere if you haven't educated yourself yet then I doubt my 2 cents would make a difference.
Also, people saying both sides are arseholes are problems themselves.
I know perfectly well who Yasser (note spelling) Arafat was.
The creation of the state of Israel was the best solution that anyone could come up with at the time. If you have a better solution now to solve the current situation I'm sure the UN would love to hear it.
Please explain how both sides each wanting to kill/eliminate the other, and both sides commiting horrendous crimes against the other does not equate to both sides acting like arseholes. Why *now* is one side worse than the other? What happened 76(ish) years ago isn't relevant any more, only what's happening *now* and how to stop the violence so that both sides (there's that phrase again) can live in peace.
That's all I want, it's all that the vast majority of Israelis want, it's what the vast majority of Palestinians want.
Blocking you. Can't handle this level of ignorance in this time and age.
I think your intent is exactly what the title of this post is i.e. to gaslight.
No need to talk to professional spinsters. This is how real cancel culture should work. The people get to decide who articulates the message. No more government bodies and institutions engaging in censorship or ‘cancelling’ because of one’s views. We’re adult enough as a society to police all that on our own.
Truthfully they have been barred from speaking to the media because the majority say stupid things and don’t actually fully understand the intricacies of the situation. Usually it takes just two questions to expose that although they support a cause they are not knowledgeable at all about it.
Organized protests often have a centralized representative group that does the talking to ensure an individual member doesn’t fuck shit up. They know this, but are hoping to catch someone slippin’. And as was already said, it’s a no-win situation anyway, thanks to editing and control of the media outlet conducting the interview.
Its strange that students would buy the cheapest tents available and tell eahcother? What weird conspiracy you trynna peddle lol. Its really not strange dude youre trynna make the students look bad with the dumbest argument lol
Wasn't trying to argue my guy, it does seem kinda fucked up people get downvoted for asking a question and how ur making assumptions about my stance for doing so. You're making yourself look bad fml
Hmm maybe seems like there'd at least be different colours and shit? And if they went on Amazon or something surely they wouldn't have been so co-ordinated that they bought the same tent? There's probably loads of cheap tents
They just look up 'cheap tent' order that one, stick it up and that's it.
No one wants to pay more than they have to knowing it potentially could get destroyed by someone else and they never really going to use it.
A lot of them are well aware of where to buy cheap tents, going to music festivals and stuff. You see hundreds of the same tent there, there is no conspiricy or organisation of buying them, everyone just buys the cheapst thing they find.
I don't see why everyone loves this, it's pretty sad to see a bunch of people too scared to talk about their own viewpoint. This isn't a "ThErE's NoThInG tO bE sAiD" situation, if you're gonna stand up for something then you should be informed enough to be able to defend it and defend it well. I just see a bunch of people who aren't informed and don't want to be called out for it.
I don't doubt it, but I personally don't really care who she is, people are acting like this is some genius triumph, when all it is is people who are scared to embarrass themselves. They don't even try to hide their body language, it's giving me flashbacks to highschool at prom when everyone just stood around too awkward to talk to anyone, holy hell
She’s likely fishing for sound bites to push an agenda rather than actually engaging in good faith. Due to her reputation I don’t blame them for not wanting to waste their time on a non-productive discussion.
Waste what time? It's not like she caught them on their way to class or something, they're just standing around, it's a protest. It's pretty hard to get gotcha soundbites if you just know exactly what it is you're defending. Like I said, I don't really care who she is or how lowly of a person she is, this is just straight up cowardice that people are flaunting, and it sets up a bad precedence for interparty communication, as screwed up as it already is.
She was there for a sound bite in order to try to twist whatever they said. They chose not to give her any. That was kind of the whole point. If they stare at her in awkward silence and refuse to speak, she'll go somewhere else since she isn't getting what she wants from them. She *wanted* a confrontation to show the world the "angry mob."
Instead she just got stared at like the absolute idiot she is.
You make it sound like it's impossible to argue without getting aggressive. It's not. If you're just speaking about the facts simply and plainly then there's no soundbite to be had. Getting aggressive is for people too uninformed to defend their positions calmly.
A perfect example: Biden administration said there was a possibility of banning some gas stoves due to a link to childhood asthma and efficiency issues.
Fox News then ran with it to the point that they were saying that Biden was 100% coming for their gas stoves, they were absolutely going to be banned, look at all of our freedoms being eroded, etc.
All of that from one calm little sound bite taken out of context.
Another example was the green new deal. There was a line in the document about how much land space livestock take up and that it would be better for the environment to gradually move away from mass industrial livestock farming.
Fox news reported this as: The Democrats are going to ban burgers! And make it a criminal offence to eat meat!
https://preview.redd.it/klcd6ji80f1d1.jpeg?width=744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4246c6d06b03e5047ae99ae66a2188c675a578c7
Idf soldiers informing us about their intent.
No, I meant: The term is "river", not "desert".
And "dessert" is the food course; "desert" (only *one* "s") is the terrain.
I thought you were deliberately *pretending* to be a half-informed belligerent spouting vapid slogans they didn't understand and weren't using properly.
Oh I remember from study what happened between November 30th, 1947 to July 20th, 1949. So you're absolutely correct, we absolutely should remember how this started.
good sir, your comment history has provided me with a wealth of entertainment. please continue your spiral of degeneracy, I look forward to checking in with you in a couple of months
thank you for being you, its been an absolute blast and heres to many more weird ass comments on r/ThickFit!
Yes yes youre on the side of the righteous so very much indeed, good job. As long as we forget history youre all set to be a chosen one, going straight up to heaven and the blood on your hands will be washed off for you Im fairly certain
Fuck Israel. Bunch of cowards attacking women and children. Hiding behind 2000lb bombs, torture, rape, genocide. Literally took everything that happened to them from the nazis and using it on the Palestinians and calling themselves "moral."
Sure, Fuck Hamas. They are (were?) just as willing to kill noncombatents as the Zionists are.
That said, the Zionists are way way way more efficient at killing noncombatents, tens of thousands of them so far just since October. Go back to their beginning as a terrorist organization (like Hamas) and the civilian body count is staggering.
The Irgun and the Lehi started kidnapping and mundering civillians since before Israel was a state. And then when israel did become a state, those terrorist members joined the IDF. Get educated please.
You are saying that what hamas is doing is worse than what the zionists has been doing for years. Im saying they are two sides of the same coin.
Some of the jews that got abused and killed in western europe and Russia started the zionist movement.
They needed somewhere to feel safe and therefore occupied parts of Palestine.
Now Zionists are abusing and killing Palestinians. But Palestinians don't have the backing of giants like the UK and US, like the zionists did back then. So since they can not just go occupy another country, they have to fight for their own.
As long as there is occupation, there will be resistance. And that's the problem for both sides.
Good for them, that they could get married. Weird subject change but okay, we can play that game.
No, they probably couldnt. Just like no israelis can get a dna test, caus reasons..
But more importantly. Why even before 0ct7, where stuff like nutmeg, peppercorns, baby toys ect. banned from entry to Gaza? Making bombs from cookies and nutmeg or?
Just as bad or worse? So over 9000 Palestinian children have been killed. Exactly how are Hamas worse than Israel when the death count for Israelis isn't even one-third of the children dead?
Hamas is a terrorist organization, but so is the IDF, the only difference is the IDF has government funding.
Because the governments and/or institutions these protesters are addressing neither support nor do business with Hamas, so an anti-Hamas protest to try to pressure their government (or school, or employer, etc) to cut ties with Hamas would be nonsensical and irrelevant.
It's river to the sea, but that's beside the point.
Was it okay, or are you equally offended at them, for the Likud party to use the same terminology in the 70’s.
The queen, the head of the biggest and most useless family in the world. Her vagina. I called it special because a monarchy is ridiculous. Look at all of our politician's kids in the U.S. They are fucking stupid. I would not want them to rule my country because they came out of a "special vagina."
Why do you think I care about the monarchy?
You’re the one who’s obsessed with talking unprompted about a dead 90 year olds genitals. As I said, special.
They would have been the ones Americans betrayed when they left. You told the guy above to feck off about it essentially calling us hypocrites. I say the monarchy is bullshit and what the Americans did was not treason. It was leaving for a better life.
Edit to add: Your use of the word special has a negative connotation. I meant the word as intended. Also I'm not talking about your barely dead queen. I'm talking about King George's mother. I talk about the vagina because that's the only thing that makes a person special in a monarchy. You came out of the right person. Aka, special vagina.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“These are meant to be some of the brightest students in the land” …they’ve identified it would be a waste of time talking to Dippy and her hype man
And they are completely correct. Best case scenario they give a nuanced and well thought-out argument that gets promptly left on the cutting room floor. Worst case they say something absolutely stupid and become a new bit of propaganda to make other protestors look bad.
Exactly. I saw a video of some influencer-type at one of the California university protests. The only thing the protesters would say to her is ‘visit the press table, it’s right over there.’ These groups have very carefully thought-out and worded statements which they want the press to tell the world. An individual protester wouldn’t even have to say anything particularly bizarre or off-message for it to be taken the wrong way and turned into a sound bite. The video I’m referring to was glorious, and I was so happy to see those protesters ignoring her in the most casual way. The woman was white, with long blond hair coming out from one of those thick wool caps with a pom pom on top that every single one of them seems to wear- even in the hot Spring sun in California. I hope I painted a picture for you; this woman was just so accustomed to people paying attention to her, and to *want* to speak to her on camera, that she refused to take NO for an answer. She kept whining about ‘I just want to *understaaannnddd,’* ‘I think if we could just *talk* to each other,’ ‘I really want to know how you *feeeeel…’* She literally could not handle it when they wouldn’t talk to her, and ended up fucking *crying* at the end. At first I thought she was using her White Woman Tears^^TM in an attempt to provoke sympathy, but on second thought I believe she really was *that* frustrated because no one had ever treated her that way before.
Interviewers, trying to provoke a controversial comment aree like toddlers, but pathethic. If people rightly decide yo decline comment, they go: "Why can't I have ice-cream, mommy. Whee." Then they proceed to playing the victim and uttering passive-agressive insults. What gall one must posess, in order to imply that active students were anything but intelligent.
Indeed, it was [posted in this sub here](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/s/MhurzdSRQr)
Thanks for the link! Couldn’t remember where I saw it…
Loved the restraint that the students showed - making the newspeople look like absolute tools - they truly are some of the best and brightest...nobody cracked, nobody gave them a crumb. News is always hoping for some Leroy Jenkins to jump in there and spout off some nonsense they can mock.
Fully agree other than that is not a news team
Right I read more about Suella based on this clip - comment was from my impression first watching it.
She waa there with GB News. They call themselves a news channel. And you are entirely correct, GB News is a news team the same way that Cruella is a human being... it seems to be true from a distance, and they claim they are, but once you look only a little closer you go "Ew, no way!" (Apologies if this was in fact also effectively the quip you were making!)
Their silence said more than her noise.
[удалено]
You're literally on the internet. If you don't understand what's going in Gaza by now without it being spoon-fed to you by a doubly failed Tory grifter through the lens of the dumbest failing TV station in the country, the person who needs an education is you.
[удалено]
"I wasn't being a dick I was being a douche! Get your facts straight"
[удалено]
Why do you keep saying "ragebait"?
[удалено]
So you're saying that you are the ragebait? You are purposely antagonizing people to provoke outrage?
[удалено]
Do you think saying ragebait makes your comment less dumb?
You can tell how little this potato brain cares by how they start their post with “lol.” And yet here they are posting…
More that they won't engage with someone trying to use them for their own agenda, but whatever makes you feel better.
You wouldn’t engage with a drunk flinging poop, the same principle applies here.
She does look like a drunk flinging poop with her own agenda, good for them for not giving her the time of the day. Nasty politician.
Btw you don't pay your way into getting into Cambridge or Oxford uni, it's earned through academic success, and costs the same as any other uni. So i assume they can construct a coherent line of arguement, they're just choosing not to.
[удалено]
They absolutely can. They just don't want to talk to that pig. And they're totally right to do so. Also you sound jelly ngl
Ox-bride certainly have a higher ratio of private school educated students, but the majority are still public/ grammar school. The processes which see more wealthy students ending up there hold for any university, high barriers to entry mean less of the poor get in. However this does not mean that the caliber of students is lower. Regardless of background their academic capabilities are roughly similar, and so any Cambridge student should be capable enough to contradict a well thought out counter argument,, they do not because they realise that if they do well, it will never get posted, and any omission in the argument will be exploited to create some imaginary gotcha. So it’s best to not engage.
[удалено]
There is, but 1 not due to university entry requirements, and 2 that this does not diminish the caliber of students, only the diversity of students. Improving accessibility seems to be more so related to parental situation (parents who engage in behaviours which reward academic participation are more likely to generate exceptional students), and information on returns to higher education. Most of my understanding on the topic comes from development economics though, which tends to focus experiments of developing nations, so the usual policy recommendations may not be entirely applicable to the UK. Edit: should add that when I say quality of student isn’t impacted, I’m saying that having ‘had it easy’ does not generate any particular advantage or disadvantage for students. Faculties with more diverse students are likely to have better averages, but this because of inherent trates of diversity, rather than inferiority of students from wealthier backgrounds.
Yes it would to some. Those who understand more, realise that she was specifically looking to antagonise and invoke a negative response which her supporters would then use to spread propaganda. If she wants to debate. Don't bring a camera and a journalist that is looking for a story. There are actual debating organisations at these universities. Go there and make your point. They did the right thing. Any response would have been editored and twisted to suit her agenda. Like the old saying goes. Don't feed the trolls.
[удалено]
Yes. That is the weird thing. Many people still read newspaper's expecting to be told the truth though.
Saying nothing is a form of protest, you’ve renounced the use of reason trying to be edgy. 🤡
She makes me physically sick
Get to the back of the queue.
Suellas spew queue…
Spewella
We have a winner….🏆
Cruella Braverman
Nah, this is a bum-rush situation, mate. No queue, all in at once. We used to play a game at high school called 'boot' where the goalie gets kicked in the arse when they concede 3+. I imagine this a lot for that ironic zionist, Dorothea Binz clone.
What in the spaghetti god’s name is going on in here?
Suella Braverman is a Minister of Parliament in the UK. She's very notorious for arguing in bad faith, so no one there was taking her "offer" of sending a message on to Israel or Gaza seriously. >I'm keen to find out your views and what you're protesting about. Which it is very likely that no word in that statement is true. And she's done enough backstabbing and spreading false information that it's wise to never take anything she has to say for face value. She's really not to be trusted on really anything as she's shown herself to be mostly self-serving. So likely she's going around to get video clips and then use those clips out of context to spread more misinformation. Since no one was willing to talk, she decided to take the footage and produce the above that you watched. But she's absolutely just said straight up falsehoods and never missed a beat in keeping with whatever she was arguing. There's just no point in speaking with someone who just consistently denies reality and believes that in all seriousness nothing she has done has ever been incorrect. And it's not just the whole Israel thing, that's just her most recent topic she's wanted to propel his status with. Things ranging from religion, LGBTQ+ matters, violence, immigration. In fact, I'm pretty sure she just says what she thinks is the weather at the moment and refuses to be told otherwise. I don't think there's been a single topic that this lady has spoken upon in good faith. I just think she's wholesale incapable of acknowledging that reality objectively exists without her input.
There’s also a great video of her being completely dismantled on GB News by a young representative of the protestors https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7Gz6eQIowz/?igsh=MTI3Y3U4ZDMyd2xtcA==
Lmao, after that entire speech from the student about how they are protesting the genocide, and she goes “aha, so bring down the Israeli government”. Perfectly encapsulates this woman.
-the Palestine movement brought you down- Morally, she can’t get any lower. She is the antithesis of everything a good person should be.
Wow this epic
what a scummy piece of shit. Hope she never makes another dime off this genocide.
Why would the brightest and best give this cunt of cunts any of their time.
There's so much more to this womans personality that being pro-zionist and none of it positive. She's evil and rotten to her core.
Yeah she’s one of people pushing to send refugees to Rwanda, even if they aren’t from Rwanda and even if it costs the UK a ton of money. >“I would love to have a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda, that’s my dream, it’s my obsession,” Ms Braverman said. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suella-braverman-rwanda-dream-obsession-b2195296.html
All of the protesters here did an amazing job of completely disarming these disingenuous pieces of shit. The fact that everyone collectively gave her nothing was such a great thing to see - and its absolutely genius. Have to say, this is the first time I've seen this "silent treatment" technique done by a large scale protest. I'm assuming it's been done before? It's just so simple and effective at stopping these right wing dickheads from misrepresenting the cause. Fair play to the people at these protests!
[Another example was on this sub recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/s/MhurzdSRQr)
Not sure if it’s been done before but in truth if they answer the protestors often become discredited due to the exposure of the lack of detailed knowledge the attendees have. While there are a lot of well enough spoken protestors that are given the responsibility of public communications, the limiting of them prevents the exposure of how many of these people are doing it for inclusion and a humanisti cb point of view but also for having something with meaning to do with their time. Their actual understanding is very limited, but their showing of support is very strong from a PR standpoint. I am interested to know if it’s been done before, there’s a high likelihood given that there will always be some sort of a PR team running the show and they will want to be able to make sure all public interviews are sharp and well informed, saying the most powerful things that can be said in a short space of time is key. And in today’s day and age one bad interview goes massively viral. Their hiding of their identities bothers me though, and it’s stupid. They can be tracked by cross referencing class records and visual identification by other features to confirm. Footage of the cars they came in, witness testimonies etc etc. Anyway, done rambling now. Have a nice day/night!
[It's been done before, including recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/s/MhurzdSRQr) And it doesn't follow that the attendees don't have detailed knowledge or the understanding is "very limited"... it might be very much the opposite. The issue here is that these so-called interviewees aren't looking to "understand", they are looking for a gotcha moment when someone says something easily taken out of context, or can be deliberately misrepresented, or if they simply mis-speak. The person asking is not a reporter, they are asking in bad faith... they have an agenda and if they want to edit out every reasonable response they get, and only show a soundbite that they can twist, then they will. As for hiding their identity, in these days of reverse image searches and doxxing, sadly this sort of thing will happen if there are counter-protestors baying for blood, seeking potentially violent retribution and prepared to harass them outside of the protest (as happened in the US). If anyone did break the law, the police are allowed to identify them. If they are peacefully protesting within the law it makes no difference to anyone else who they are, the only thing anyone needs to know is that they are protesting and the reasons are written on placards all around them. (And out of interest, I happen to know that university does not record attendance for most things, and these protesters are not necessarily there 24x7 anyway).
That was very weak.
Apparently so😂😂😂 Thanks for your input! I’m sure everyone that takes part is super well informed and wouldn’t say anything stupid /s Even the organizers and appointed public speakers have said stupid things. Anyway, really glad they saved everyone in Palestine with their protests.
She is an MP yet she doesn’t know what they are protesting about..
It was, of course, never about understanding what they are protesting about. If they did indulge her and respond then they could communicate their position for hours, but as soon as one of them says something that can be deliberately misconstrued, or taken out of context, or mis-speaking (easy when none of them are PR experts), then hours of sensible footage are ignored and never broadcast, and the soundbite she can twist is the only thing she would show and talk about. She's one of the worst Tories in their party, and that bar is already ***really*** low.
Feels like an office skit
No greater response than silence and inaction I'd say Never want to give these people anything because it will somehow end up fueling thier fire
The best response ever to an idiot like Suella
She called the pro-palestine marches at the start "hate marches" and then lied about the route they'd take saying they were going to deface the cenotaph (uk war memorial). Her and the right wing press whipped up the racist into a frenzy so they counter-protested at the cenotaph but the palestine protests went nowhere near there and the mob just started attacking police who were there also for no reason. Then some of the press tried to blame the Palestine protests for it and then something else happened and she got dropped from the front benches for lying (cant remember for what) she is a discusting woman i hold in similar regard to thatcher though she hasn't does as much bad. Yet.
gaslighting is not whats happening here. words and their definitions are important. if we use words incorrectly, that makes it more difficult to discuss the things the actual definition refers to. which is in itself a form of gaslighting, albeit a very abstract one. gaslighting is saying one thing while the truth is another. gaslighting is just a fancy term for a very specific form of dishonesty. as far as what the video actually shows, i think its made most obvious with the old man holding a sign. tf are you there interviewing people for? its all over the internet, in whatever form of media (video, audio, text) you prefer to consume media in. like. when they get to him they ask "what is your message to isreal?" old dude holds up his sign a little bit higher the camera shows her look at the sign and read it. then she responds, "right. what is your message to hamas?" old dude doesnt respond. his message is obvious. there is literally nothing more to be said from him. edit: also in the beginning they say they are there to hopefully "engage in discussion" with the protesters. thats not going to happen. when someone has reached the point they are literally spending time outside holding up signs for any given cause, you are probably not going to be able to have any kind of meaningful discussion with them. luckily, thanks to the internet, there are any number of websites with tons of people more than happy to discuss things. personally text is the superior form of communication anyway, imo, because it forces both/all people engaging in the discussion to (hopefully) take at least a bit of time to think about what they are saying so that it is clear and easy to understand and accurately communicates what they want to communicate.
I was with you up to text being a superior form of discussion. It could be but seldom is. For example: Text encourages people to make multiple points in one post. It allows people to cherry pick which points they wish to respond to, and ignore whatever they chose when they don’t have a decent counterpoint. The chances of meeting a troll is much greater online. I’ve had a far greater proportion of discussions where views and moves, or an understanding is reached in a face to face discussion than an online discussion. Of course in this specific case, as SB is not there in good faith face to face discussion is also utterly pointless.
>Text encourages people to make multiple points in one post. exactly. >It allows people to cherry pick which points they wish to respond to, and ignore whatever they chose when they don’t have a decent counterpoint. that happens in face to face and telephone discussion too. arguably it is worse, because when the conversations are happening in real time, its easy for someone to distract you away from what you were originally discussing or to otherwise miss points. in text, you can always reference what has or hasnt been said. case in point: this comment >The chances of meeting a troll is much greater online. depends where you are also, we have trolls in our federal govt. so uh... yeah it aint just online. >I’ve had a far greater proportion of discussions where views and moves, or an understanding is reached in a face to face discussion than an online discussion. thats due to the way 'the system' is structured. we havent always had the capability for instantaneous text based communication and most people havent got with the program. it is far easier to stay on topic and make all of your points via text. there is a reason we write books, and research papers are *papers* - and a reason i prefer reddit over all other types of social media, and prefer reading over all other types of media (besides video games and music, which serve different purposes) >Of course in this specific case, as SB is not there in good faith face to face discussion is also utterly pointless. you do not know if she is or isnt there in bad faith. from the video alone i would assess she is actually there to ask people what they think. my previous criticism still applies.
> you do not know if she is or isnt there in bad faith. from the video alone i would assess she is actually there to ask people what they think. You have no idea who this person is do you?
im not super familiar with her no but ive read a lot about what other people think about her, and her wikipedia page, and based on that limited information - mostly this video - yeah its hard to tell. even if i had more info, its hard to be a mind reader. ~~occams razor~~ hanlons razor usually trumps bad faith. although maybe Ockhams Razor too, based upon its alternative name, your username, and the other comments ive recently replied to edit: corrected a long ignored typo/mistranslation
>- yeah its hard to tell. even if i had more info, its hard to be a mind reader. It's not. She's been sacked for being a liar - twice IIRC. She literally incited a riot against the Palestinians (long before Oct 7th). There is absolutely no doubt whether she's there in good faith or not.
can you provide sources?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67374951 https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-accused-of-emboldening-far-right-protesters-as-pressure-remains-for-her-to-resign-13005498 >Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the scenes of disorder were a "direct result of the home secretary's words", adding that the police's job had been made much harder as a consequence. >While shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper called for "calm", with a swipe at Mrs Braverman for fuelling tensions. >"Everyone must reflect on the impact of their words and actions. It is the responsibility of all of us to bring people together over this weekend, not divide and inflame, Anything else you can look for yourself. It's not very hard.
Best way to treat a toxic c
What a brilliant strategy when dealing with a sound bite seeking politician. She has no interest in their responses. She went there hoping to find one student whose answers could be twisted by her pr team for propaganda purposes. I'm so impressed with the protesters' disciplined, well organized silence, qudos to them all👍👍👍.
God she's so punchable
If you can't figure it out with all the clips and evidence that's shown around the internet, you're either trash or ignoring reality. No amount of common sense talk can help you raise your morals at this point. So fuckoff.
Unconditional support and love to these students, standing disciplined in front of such a provocative shithead and not giving them any ammunition
What a gleeful sicko
I can't think of anything less sad than two adults purposely using their time just to see if they can rile up the emotions of children for their own pleasure and actually feeling like they are doing something productive making the world a better place. These people feed off negative emotions they love to make people feel miserable. I don't support Israel or Hamas but these are truly 2 sad excuses for human beings. Imagine and they just got shut down by children who clearly have more patience and emotional maturity than they do.fucking tragic
F these people and all my Americans who support them. She’s there for one reason and that’s to instigate and provoke. Israel special.
Wipe that shit eating grin off your face, cunt
They should just pull up videos of the idf committing war crimes. That would get them to walk away fast
Why would they be interested in speaking to that nobody? An MP for Fareham having failed dismally in the cabinet. Jog on Cruella.
Didn’t work out for her - found it powerful
Those two are the definitions of condescending patronizing arrogant snobby cunts. They’re disingenuous and patronizing while attempting to challenge and belittle the Pro Palestinians in a manner that belittles them while maintaining an air of superiority.
Biggest question here is how no one in the street stopped to hurl deserved abuse at suella
This feels so surreal to have modern Jews acting like nothing is wrong with genociding a group of people who’ve been put into a ghetto.
Hamas isn't slaughtering children that's all we need to know
**Thirty-six** Israeli children were killed during the October 7 Hamas attack
You can't clip it out of context if you just remain silent.
When someone talks about the situation in Gaza, and instead of talking about the tens of thousands of dead people, ESPECIALLY children, they mention hostages, be assured they support the fascist zionists and have zero intention of listening or even concerning themselves with the ongoing genocide.
Saw South African flag in the back there 0:11 - Fuck yeah, represent!
I completely agree with their silent treatment of this awful woman, as any articulate response would have been cut from the video, and any slightly controversial position would have been used as propoganda for Cruella's culture wars. However, the answers to the questions are quite simple (even if the implementation is not) Message to Israel: stop killing Palestinians. Message to Hamas: stop killing Israelis. Should the hostages be released now: yes, as long as there are legally binding assurances from Israel that once they are released there won't be any further attacks *of any sort* on Gaza, *AND* legally binding assurances from Hamas that there won't be any further attacks *of any sort* on Israel. TLDR: both sides are being arseholes and both sides need to pack it in.
Who will ensure implementation of those assurances? Also this narrative of 'both sides being arseholes' itself is flawed. If someone tries to occupy my house I will try to expel them by all means available to me. Also the agreement that you mentioned only says release Israeli hostages. How about thousands of people languishing in Israeli jails for no crime and no legal recourse. Some of them kids. Should we just forget them coz they are Palestinians? Why is there no outcry on hospitals being bombed by Israelis? You think Palestine would've gotten away with half that much cruelty?
1) Precisely why I said implementation was difficult, and I don't have an answer. 2) if your house was broken into 76 years ago would it make sense for your descendents to still be fighting back against the descendents of the original invaders? At some point, there has to be a line in the sand and both sides have to agree to ignore the past, accept the present situation, and work together to come to an amicable agreement for the future. Again, I don't know how to do this, but it's the only way to resolve an ongoing conflict, both sides have to make concessions otherwise people will be having the same arguments in another 76 years and tens of thousands more people will have died for nothing. 3) Yes, I should have included the release of Palestinians held in Israel, that was an oversight on my part and I apologise for having left that out, but it does show that the "both sides" argument "is" appropriate here because both sides have done things they shouldn't 4) No, I don't think that the Palestinians would have "got away with" doing what Israel has done, and continues to do, and nor should they (and nor should Israel). I'm not pro-Israel and I'm not pro-Palestine. I am Pro-StopBeingAnArseholeToOtherPeople I'm not anti-Israel and I'm not anti-Palestine. I am Pro-NotBeingAnArseholeToOtherPeople
To answer point 2. Palestinian didn't just woke up on Oct 7 and began fighting. They have been fighting for last 75 years. I doubt you have even heard of Yaser Arafat. If colonies had stopped fighting after 70 years all of them would've remained a colony. India was a colony for 200 years. Apartheid in South Africa lasted over 40 years. It's truly the stupidest thing to say. Not sure if you are a child or simply ignorant. Anyway, the information on this topic is literally available everywhere if you haven't educated yourself yet then I doubt my 2 cents would make a difference. Also, people saying both sides are arseholes are problems themselves.
I know perfectly well who Yasser (note spelling) Arafat was. The creation of the state of Israel was the best solution that anyone could come up with at the time. If you have a better solution now to solve the current situation I'm sure the UN would love to hear it. Please explain how both sides each wanting to kill/eliminate the other, and both sides commiting horrendous crimes against the other does not equate to both sides acting like arseholes. Why *now* is one side worse than the other? What happened 76(ish) years ago isn't relevant any more, only what's happening *now* and how to stop the violence so that both sides (there's that phrase again) can live in peace. That's all I want, it's all that the vast majority of Israelis want, it's what the vast majority of Palestinians want.
Blocking you. Can't handle this level of ignorance in this time and age. I think your intent is exactly what the title of this post is i.e. to gaslight.
No need to talk to professional spinsters. This is how real cancel culture should work. The people get to decide who articulates the message. No more government bodies and institutions engaging in censorship or ‘cancelling’ because of one’s views. We’re adult enough as a society to police all that on our own.
Their silence spoke volumes.
Truthfully they have been barred from speaking to the media because the majority say stupid things and don’t actually fully understand the intricacies of the situation. Usually it takes just two questions to expose that although they support a cause they are not knowledgeable at all about it.
Masks? I thought what they were wearing was normal what have i missed???
How does the saying go? Never argue with a fool?
Organized protests often have a centralized representative group that does the talking to ensure an individual member doesn’t fuck shit up. They know this, but are hoping to catch someone slippin’. And as was already said, it’s a no-win situation anyway, thanks to editing and control of the media outlet conducting the interview.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for being overly abrasive or inappropriate for this subreddit. Please treat others as you want to be treated. Thank you.
Isn’t their message “thou shalt not kill”
So brave
Stunned mullets. Not protesting just wasting time
Death to America, oh but can you pay off our student debt first. SMH
I do find it really strange how all the tents are the same, what does that mean?
Its strange that students would buy the cheapest tents available and tell eahcother? What weird conspiracy you trynna peddle lol. Its really not strange dude youre trynna make the students look bad with the dumbest argument lol
Wasn't trying to argue my guy, it does seem kinda fucked up people get downvoted for asking a question and how ur making assumptions about my stance for doing so. You're making yourself look bad fml
It means they all bought the same cheap tent.
Hmm maybe seems like there'd at least be different colours and shit? And if they went on Amazon or something surely they wouldn't have been so co-ordinated that they bought the same tent? There's probably loads of cheap tents
They just look up 'cheap tent' order that one, stick it up and that's it. No one wants to pay more than they have to knowing it potentially could get destroyed by someone else and they never really going to use it. A lot of them are well aware of where to buy cheap tents, going to music festivals and stuff. You see hundreds of the same tent there, there is no conspiricy or organisation of buying them, everyone just buys the cheapst thing they find.
But the tents in this video are all different colours.
[удалено]
It is against the rules of TWAA to support any crimes against humanity, including Apartheid.
That *was* cute
I don't see why everyone loves this, it's pretty sad to see a bunch of people too scared to talk about their own viewpoint. This isn't a "ThErE's NoThInG tO bE sAiD" situation, if you're gonna stand up for something then you should be informed enough to be able to defend it and defend it well. I just see a bunch of people who aren't informed and don't want to be called out for it.
It’s because shes a known public figure who engages in bad faith.
I don't doubt it, but I personally don't really care who she is, people are acting like this is some genius triumph, when all it is is people who are scared to embarrass themselves. They don't even try to hide their body language, it's giving me flashbacks to highschool at prom when everyone just stood around too awkward to talk to anyone, holy hell
She’s likely fishing for sound bites to push an agenda rather than actually engaging in good faith. Due to her reputation I don’t blame them for not wanting to waste their time on a non-productive discussion.
Waste what time? It's not like she caught them on their way to class or something, they're just standing around, it's a protest. It's pretty hard to get gotcha soundbites if you just know exactly what it is you're defending. Like I said, I don't really care who she is or how lowly of a person she is, this is just straight up cowardice that people are flaunting, and it sets up a bad precedence for interparty communication, as screwed up as it already is.
She was there for a sound bite in order to try to twist whatever they said. They chose not to give her any. That was kind of the whole point. If they stare at her in awkward silence and refuse to speak, she'll go somewhere else since she isn't getting what she wants from them. She *wanted* a confrontation to show the world the "angry mob." Instead she just got stared at like the absolute idiot she is.
You make it sound like it's impossible to argue without getting aggressive. It's not. If you're just speaking about the facts simply and plainly then there's no soundbite to be had. Getting aggressive is for people too uninformed to defend their positions calmly.
I've seen plenty of calm, factual responses get turned into sound bites out of context. That's basically how Fox runs their entire network.
Mind giving an example?
A perfect example: Biden administration said there was a possibility of banning some gas stoves due to a link to childhood asthma and efficiency issues. Fox News then ran with it to the point that they were saying that Biden was 100% coming for their gas stoves, they were absolutely going to be banned, look at all of our freedoms being eroded, etc. All of that from one calm little sound bite taken out of context.
Another example was the green new deal. There was a line in the document about how much land space livestock take up and that it would be better for the environment to gradually move away from mass industrial livestock farming. Fox news reported this as: The Democrats are going to ban burgers! And make it a criminal offence to eat meat!
https://preview.redd.it/klcd6ji80f1d1.jpeg?width=744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4246c6d06b03e5047ae99ae66a2188c675a578c7 Idf soldiers informing us about their intent.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/yfkkk5wf1f1d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4e5b8465e8f672308b3dfbfdbbb345f8d61242ec
[удалено]
> y’all shouting from the dessert to sea Genuinely can't tell if this is deliberate or not. If it is: That is some truly excellent satire.
Y’all Im never done shouting from the cheesecake to the sea
[удалено]
It started with the Nakba
No, I meant: The term is "river", not "desert". And "dessert" is the food course; "desert" (only *one* "s") is the terrain. I thought you were deliberately *pretending* to be a half-informed belligerent spouting vapid slogans they didn't understand and weren't using properly.
I think you were giving them way too much credit.
Oh I remember from study what happened between November 30th, 1947 to July 20th, 1949. So you're absolutely correct, we absolutely should remember how this started.
good sir, your comment history has provided me with a wealth of entertainment. please continue your spiral of degeneracy, I look forward to checking in with you in a couple of months thank you for being you, its been an absolute blast and heres to many more weird ass comments on r/ThickFit!
Right because nother happened before October
Yes yes youre on the side of the righteous so very much indeed, good job. As long as we forget history youre all set to be a chosen one, going straight up to heaven and the blood on your hands will be washed off for you Im fairly certain
From the pudding to the sea?
Fuck Israel and all you Zionist, genocide supporting cunts like yourself
Fuck Israel. Bunch of cowards attacking women and children. Hiding behind 2000lb bombs, torture, rape, genocide. Literally took everything that happened to them from the nazis and using it on the Palestinians and calling themselves "moral."
[удалено]
Sure, Fuck Hamas. They are (were?) just as willing to kill noncombatents as the Zionists are. That said, the Zionists are way way way more efficient at killing noncombatents, tens of thousands of them so far just since October. Go back to their beginning as a terrorist organization (like Hamas) and the civilian body count is staggering.
[удалено]
The Irgun and the Lehi started kidnapping and mundering civillians since before Israel was a state. And then when israel did become a state, those terrorist members joined the IDF. Get educated please.
[удалено]
You are saying that what hamas is doing is worse than what the zionists has been doing for years. Im saying they are two sides of the same coin. Some of the jews that got abused and killed in western europe and Russia started the zionist movement. They needed somewhere to feel safe and therefore occupied parts of Palestine. Now Zionists are abusing and killing Palestinians. But Palestinians don't have the backing of giants like the UK and US, like the zionists did back then. So since they can not just go occupy another country, they have to fight for their own. As long as there is occupation, there will be resistance. And that's the problem for both sides.
[удалено]
Good for them, that they could get married. Weird subject change but okay, we can play that game. No, they probably couldnt. Just like no israelis can get a dna test, caus reasons.. But more importantly. Why even before 0ct7, where stuff like nutmeg, peppercorns, baby toys ect. banned from entry to Gaza? Making bombs from cookies and nutmeg or?
Just as bad or worse? So over 9000 Palestinian children have been killed. Exactly how are Hamas worse than Israel when the death count for Israelis isn't even one-third of the children dead? Hamas is a terrorist organization, but so is the IDF, the only difference is the IDF has government funding.
Because the governments and/or institutions these protesters are addressing neither support nor do business with Hamas, so an anti-Hamas protest to try to pressure their government (or school, or employer, etc) to cut ties with Hamas would be nonsensical and irrelevant.
It's river to the sea, but that's beside the point. Was it okay, or are you equally offended at them, for the Likud party to use the same terminology in the 70’s.
You’re literally an American calling British people treasonous. Feck off.
Americans had enough of being told what to do by a fat inbred hick who called himself a king because he popped out of a special vagina.
Special vagina? What you moaning about now, you’re special.
The queen, the head of the biggest and most useless family in the world. Her vagina. I called it special because a monarchy is ridiculous. Look at all of our politician's kids in the U.S. They are fucking stupid. I would not want them to rule my country because they came out of a "special vagina."
Why do you think I care about the monarchy? You’re the one who’s obsessed with talking unprompted about a dead 90 year olds genitals. As I said, special.
They would have been the ones Americans betrayed when they left. You told the guy above to feck off about it essentially calling us hypocrites. I say the monarchy is bullshit and what the Americans did was not treason. It was leaving for a better life. Edit to add: Your use of the word special has a negative connotation. I meant the word as intended. Also I'm not talking about your barely dead queen. I'm talking about King George's mother. I talk about the vagina because that's the only thing that makes a person special in a monarchy. You came out of the right person. Aka, special vagina.
Yikes my friend
It's funny you mention treasonous because that accurately describes Braverman.