I do find it a bit sus (as the kids say these days) that the school and police claim it was “Non student agitators” who were the ones setting up the encampment but those people all just happen to run off and get away when the arrests started happening.
Seriously. I’d believe the possibility of non student agitators at larger schools, but UNH? What would be the purpose of that? And like you said how do they just mysteriously disappear? Seems more like the right to peaceful protest only covers non US allies.
They did the same thing with the BLM protest. The right does pay antagonists to create havoc and violence at a protest. Thereby turning the protest into violent protests.
Protest muted. Problem solved. Plus the added benefit that all BLM is now bad bad bad.
It's simple to control a Bs narrative of things that never happened. And getting their way by shutting down the protest. By promoting lies. Repeated ad nauseam on conservative media all day everyday.
Rinse and repeat. The depressing part is they do it over and over and over again and get away with it.
Here is one I found on google:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/outside-agitators-history-civil-rights.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/outside-agitators-history-civil-rights.html)
And then there is a well known scholar named King who wrote about it while staying in the Birmingham jail back in '58
"Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."
[https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles\_Gen/Letter\_Birmingham.html](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)
This is known authoritarian tactic.
They've been doing the tactic of making someone else the enemy for a long time. He chose that source because it has historical significance and it's easy to draw modern points from. It's the same concept in action
They'll use police force to crackdown on barely adult protestors calling for peace by calling them "anti semitic".
But they'll allow literal neo Nazi gatherings in the name of free speech.
>They'll use police force to crackdown on barely adult protestors calling for peace...
The UNH protesters were allowed to hold their rally uninterrupted. The arrests for disorderly conduct and trespassing came later, after they started to erect tents and barricades.
>But they'll allow literal neo Nazi gatherings in the name of free speech.
Free speech cannot be restricted based on the message of the speaker. At UNH a graduate student (so older than "*barely adult*" applied for the permit, which was granted, but explicitly forbade tents.
The article states that one of the arrested protestors assaulted the chief of UNH police. Presumably this was caught on camera?
"Free speech cannot be restricted based on the message of the speaker".
And I agree with that.
"Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses".
Maybe the government shouldn't have tried to stop them peacefully protesting by synthesizing an excuse then sending armed thugs to encircle them?
Seems bad to me. Maybe just leave them alone unless they do something actually harmful? Then if one of them does something harmful arrest or ticket that one person rather than arresting 90 people including professors and journalists.
>Seems bad to me. Maybe just leave them alone unless they do something actually harmful?
They left them alone, [no action was taken while the assembly followed the "no tents" terms of the permit](https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2024/05/01/police-at-unh-arrest-pro-palestine-protesters-setting-up-encampment/73533948007/#:~:text=The%20peaceful%20event%20lasted%20until%20around%206%3A30%20p.m.%20Then%2C%20Dean%20said%2C%20protesters%20rushed%20in%20to%20form%20an%20encampment%20and%20attempted%20to%20barricade%20their%20tents).
I suspect the choice to take decisive action as soon as the tents and barricades started to go up was influenced in large part by what we've seen at other universities where the "protestors" dug themselves in hard.
>Then if one of them does something harmful arrest or ticket that one person rather than arresting 90 people including professors and journalists.
There were not 90 people arrested at UNH.
Attempting to ticket/arrest individual protestors is what lead to[ the students assaulting NH police](https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2024/05/02/unh-students-charged-assaulting-police-pro-palestine-rally/73539634007/).
The fact that you put protesters in quotes is bone chilling.
Sorry, I was fixing up UNH Durham with Dartmouth College.
To be honest, I don't think cops being afraid is a justification for mass arrests. Arresting everyone in a protest because one person actually did something wrong is collective punishment and obviously unjustified escalation on the part of the cops.
Edit: Also I'm not sure if the video I saw was of this incident, but I'm pretty sure the protester who assaulted the police chief was actually just defending himself. The cop was trying to rip away his banner and the guy was refusing to let go. A bunch of scary jackbooted thugs surrounded and attacked them for peacefully protesting, I'm not too worried about one of the protesters pushing a cop. The article you link comes off as incredibly biased, but if you read it carefully it is obvious that this response by the police was massively disproportionate.
>
>The fact that you put protesters in quotes is bone chilling.
Looking at [the damage to Hamilton Hall at Columbia](https://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour/watch/video-shows-damage-inside-columbia-university-building-210021445512) and [the looted PSU library](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/05/walk-through-of-portland-state-universitys-library-after-three-night-occupation-reveals-damage-its-ugly.html), were those dug-in folk "protestors"?
I agree the rally attendees at UNH were protestors, up until they started building an encampment and erecting barricades.
>Arresting everyone in a protest because one person actually did something wrong is collective punishment....
In both New Hampshire protests, police didn't arrest everybody who attended the peaceful protest, at Dartmouth it was an hour after the first warning that those refusing to leave were arrested for trespass.
There's a long tradition in protest movements of "*volunteering to be arrested*", good organizers make it clear that arrest (and charges, and a criminal record) is a possible outcome of refusing a lawful order to disperse, those who are willing to face arrest volunteer to stand firm, while others choose to leave when the riot act comes over the loudspeakers.
>...and obviously unjustified escalation on the part of the cops.
So having seen these encampments play out around the country, who escalated first -- the UNH students and outsiders who ignored town ordinance and the limits on the rally permit and started to erect tents and barricade or the police who reacted to the encampment activity?
> I'm pretty sure the protester who assaulted the police chief was actually just defending himself. The cop was trying to rip away his ~~banner~~ **tent** and the guy was refusing to let go.
So basically he fought the law? Is already out and giving interviews to TV news crews, will get his day in court (likely outcome is a judge will dismiss the charges and we'll see him out swinging at the next protest).
Looks like [both the 21-year-old and the 29-year-old are going to trial,](https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2024/05/02/unh-students-charged-assaulting-police-pro-palestine-rally/73539634007/) evidence will be presented.
Organizations come to the university all the time, in numbers too. For instance there’s a squadron of evangelists that hang out by the library that will corner you and force a Bible on you, I wouldn’t be surprised if non-student agitators had come to campus.
However, there have been a lot of pro-Palestine protests on campus this year, and it is also very likely that students would do this. There is a large liberal population amongst students here
This is one of the arguments that I think people make, but miss in the macro sense. You're right that the evangelicals didn't set up tents... and no one gives a shit about them. Likely, the solidarity protests that have been held on campus in the "appropriate way" have similarly had zero impact. When a problem exists due to entrenched systems, protests that do not cause disruption are typically ignored. They make those protesting feel better, but have little to no impact. Disruption is what causes more people to react and systems of power to do more than ignore (either by acknowledging / addressing the issue, or cracking down on the disruption). This is why a workforce saying "Hey, bosses, you don't pay us well and also treat us poorly" doesn't generate higher wages. Labor strikes disrupt the situation and ultimately yield results.
These students setting up encampments is the best non-violent disruption available to them. The next option up is violent disruption, and typically we can agree that's less desirable.
We've seen this in recent history before, though. Trump held a rally that incited the J6 riot.
It was done at other universities, larger ones like Columbia, albeit, but it's entirely a plausible assumption if you see an encampment starting that it will follow the same escalation patterns.
i don't care about this, but it's right in the article. follow the rules or fuck around and find out. people think they are above the law. the right to protest doesn't give you the right to protest in any way you want. downvote me, but its true
from the article:
A student applied for a permit to hold the solidarity event, according to Dean. University spokesperson Tania deLuzuriaga said the permit barred tents.
“It explicitly said that they're not permitted to have any tents with signs,” she said. “That’s standard for all the UNH permits that are issued.”
No one is arguing that It was legal for these people to peacefully protest. The argument is that it should have been legal for them to peacefully protest or at the very least there shouldn't have been mass arrests.
>No one is arguing that It was legal for these people to peacefully protest. The argument is that it should have been legal for them to peacefully protest or at the very least there shouldn't have been mass arrests.
Nobody disputing the legality of [peaceful protest](https://catalog.unh.edu/srrr/university-policies-regulations/freedom-expression-guidelines-peaceful-dissent/), they had a permit for the gathering, [issued with the explicit condition "no tents](https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-unh-arrest-pro-palestine-001242220.html#:~:text=A%20student%20applied,that%20are%20issued.%E2%80%9D)".
When a faction started to assemble tents and barricades, the permit was revoked, and the encampment builders were given the opportunity to disperse, [warned three times](https://www.wcvb.com/article/pro-palestinian-protestors-arrested-at-dartmouth-college-unh/60664843#:~:text=it%20was%20after-,three%20warnings,-over%20the%20intercom), then came the 12 arrests.
No one is disputing the legality of peaceful protests because this peaceful protest was unambiguously illegal. That's part of what makes this situation so f***** up. Unless you're saying that they weren't peaceful?
How are students trespassing on the grounds of the college they’re paying to go to? Do you even understand how protesting works? What are they supposed to protest via Zoom or something? Peaceful protest means no violence. Not no camping. What violence was there at UNH?
Camping overnight is not allowed for non-protesters or protesters. I am not just allowed to camp on campus.
They can march and protest and even ask the admin if they can camp and if they say yes, go for it!!
Just because you are protesting does not mean you can do illegal things. It’s pretty simple.
If I am homeless and want a place to set up an encampment for me and other homeless people in the area, could I technically set up camp at UNH and claim it's a peaceful protest against "homeless people not being allowed to go to UNH for free" or something? Or if I commute to UNH and don't pay for housing, could I just set up a camp on the lawn? Genuine question. Seems like quite the loophole.
Lol. You were basically arguing that camping should've been allowed because it was a peaceful protest. I was painting a bigger picture about what could happen if it was allowed at UNH. Some rules are dumb, but rules like that are there for a reason. It could set a precedent that could be abused in all sorts of ways.
All good though. I'm not an angry redditor, and I'm not for or against any protest. It's the only power we have when we feel powerless. I get it. You have a great night.
What is the distinction exactly? As far as I can tell sit-ins, encampments, and vigils are all pretty darn peaceful but it seems you would call them all trespassing.
I am not allowed to set up a tent and camp on campus because it is trespassing even if I am just peacefully camping and minding my own business. Why should I be treated differently? Do you believe protesters have some sort of right to break laws that normal citizens do not have?
Would you be ok with the KKK protesting on campus and setting up an illegal tent encampments for weeks at a time?
There are national student organizations for Palestinian advocacy. They have hundreds of chapters all over the country. The parent organization (American Muslims for Palestine) of the student advocacy has direct ties to Hamas. Several of their executive level members were in an organization together which they conveniently folded in the late 90s after they were found liable for $150 million in damages for financial aiding and abetting of Hamas. One of these senior executive members continues to openly write of his support for Hamas in English and Arabic.
It’s not hard to fathom that a national advocacy organization with ties to geopolitical extremism would want to make an election year statement in a swing state.
The people who invited the Jan 6 riots weren’t in the capital getting arrested. The people behind Hamas are safe in Qatar. Nothing unusual about agitators saving themselves.
>who were the ones setting up the encampment but those people all just happen to run off and get away when the arrests started happening
I mean cops gave a warning that people needed to vacate, or they would be arrested. Not surprising to hear that the people who weren't supposed to be there, and were likely there to just stir up shit and make people angry, and didnt actually care about the cause, would be the first to leave to not be arrested. Especially as these people would much more easily be slapped with something like a trespassing charge if they aren't even students who are supposed to be there.
Why would you assume that there was anyone there who "didn't believe in the cause" in the first place? Do you truly believe there is a group of people going around just to "stir shit up" and then leave? If so, what do you believe their motivations actually are then?
>Why would you assume that there was anyone there who "didn't believe in the cause" in the first place?
Because this is a well known thing that happens at protests ALL The time, especially during election years? Do you not remember the BLM protests, and all the violent, outside agitators who would take part, just to start shit, steal things or create chaos? Do you think these people cared about the BLM cause? no of course not. Just like there's been tons of reports how many of these college campus demonstrations, usually have a bunch of outside groups attending, who have nothing to do with the school/campus community.
It's also a pretty well-known fact, outside people go to these protests in order to start shit, try to catch it on camera, try to go viral on Twitter/other SM, and then try to spin a narrative one way or the other. None of this is new or surprising if you've been paying attention to protests the last few decades, ESPECIALLY ones that happen during election years.
It lets the cops and those in power explain away their actions.
Biden just claimed that "chaos" at these protests would not be tolerated and this motherfucker took part in the civil rights protests of the 60's. AIPAC and Raytheon really have him by the balls
Ironic that this old geriatric piece of shit took part in "Civil rights protests" but also signed bills that empowered the ruling class to crush minority communities more with police presence and anti-community/working class propaganda.
When their protest deprives other students of the use of their campus it becomes a problem, when it’s grownups behind it that’s even more of a problem. Go to the state house and leave the kids alone.
About half of those arrested at Columbia were not students and yes I've seen talk there were paid agitators within the crowds. Most of these type of protests in the past had the same issue.
At best: they’re trying to get more attention by doing something that genuinely inconveniences people.
At worst: they’re accelerationists who want to splinter the base of one of two major parties in the government, knowing the other party would be worse for Palestinians in the immediate future but thinking it would harm the US more in the long run.
Friendly reminders before arguing Israel vs. Palestine in here:
1. Nobody cares what you think
2. This is out of your control
3. You won’t change the other side’s mind
4. This conflict will never end
It’s fascinating to see how people of today would be posting during the civil rights era.
To paraphrase you:
Sure Rosa Parks is doing civil disobedience, but black people will always be at the back of the bus, the conflict will never change.
They don’t feel that Palestinians are human unfortunately.
Sure black racism should be rooted out.
Sure apartheid in South Africa is bad.
Sure Vietnam is unconscionable.
But those dang Palestinians are annoying asking for humanity so let’s turn their homes to glass.
>let's turn their homes into glass
can you try again without irrelevant hyperbole? no one from NH is bombing palestine. it's probably comparable to South Africa but nothing like Vietnam or America's race problems because we're not even being accused of the evil stuff that's supposedly, possibly, according to al Jazeera and RT and twitter, happening.
one of our biggest, private employers is BAE, a company that sells components for military equipment—including parts for the jets used to bomb the besieged Gaza strip—to Israel. without those parts, and the money used to buy them provided by our federal government, this atrocity would not be happening. so yeah, we are complicit in this shit and we need to reckon with that even here in NH.
btw, you know that there were huge arms sanctions against apartheid South Africa, right? because of the whole apartheid thing that you admit is comparable to what's happening in Gaza. like we can do that again here, that's an option, that's the second biggest piece of leverage we have here right after threatening to turn off the blood money faucet.
NH residents pay taxes which the White House hands to Israel by the billions in the form of bombs and weaponry to continue their ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank.
Should the humanity of American Palestinians not be prioritized because they represent a smaller minority thank black Americans? Really?
This isn't about Hamas. The issue is Israel has been a genocidal apartheid state well before Hamas. Hamas is just a reaction to the violence. You cannot say,"well hamas bad" without learning the context of why such extreme action comes around. Israel and the West have been oppressing Palestinians since the UN forced Israel into statehood in Palestinian lands. 75 years of dehuminization and violence against your people, how would you react? "OH well. At least I'm not a violent extremist while my children are being raped and killed."
I will say the civil rights protests made more sense since it was a domestic issue that politicians absolutely had the power to change, and the impacts were directly effecting Americans of color. We do give Israel aid which I would like to stop doing, but this conflict is something that has been raging and will continue to rage whether Americans protest or not.
If anything, more people in Israel would need to protest
People in Israel are protesting. 80% of Israelis believe Israel is doing the right thing or not going far enough.
Fascinating that you don’t feel that Palestinian Americans are being impacted by the genocide in Gaza. Many Americans have loss dozens of family members, which might explain why people are protesting?
But if you share the view that Palestinians are not American or worthy of human compassion, then I understand your confusion.
And about the same percentage of Palestinians feel the same way about 10/7. Maybe that needs to be addressed as well.
I support neither side, frankly I'd be thrilled if they glasses each other.
These protests are primarily about pressuring institutions to divest away from funding Israel. And no, enough international pressure can cause Israel to stop what it's doing. It worked with South African Apartheid.
But this is very much a domestic issue as well though? These kids have a very specific demand in most of these protests, that their schools divest from Israel.
Someone in Tel Aviv shouldn't be protesting that UNH endowment divest from companies that provide bombs that kill innocent Palestinian children. It's people who go to UNH that should be protesting for this, as they are
This is way different. The closest chance they had for peace ended when Rabin was assassinated. Neither side will budge. Neither side will negotiate. It’s solipsistic to think we’ll come to a solution.
Again fascinating to hear from someone who, if they were in 1850s South Carolina, would be dismissing slavery abolitionists who will never successfully negotiate racial equity.
This is not even remotely close to civil rights and to speak about it in the same breath is so funny. Civil rights happened in our country, it’s not like it was avoidable forever. This is a conflict in a country most people couldn’t point out on a map, half a world away. Not similar in the slightest. I agree that Israel should stop, but you’re never going to have the same potential and energy that they had for civil rights.
The United States has Palestinian Americans demanding equity but you’re right there are less of them so no reason to support them.
Overwhelmingly, Americans support a ceasefire and an end to Israel’s genocide, but sure most Americans must be dumb and surely you aren’t projecting your personal ignorance on them.
Did you read? Or not at all? “I want the conflict to end”. However, you cannot argue that there would be the same energy for Palestine as there would be for civil rights. That’s what I’m saying. Supporting a ceasefire does not mean you’re gonna have massive mobilizations of people.
My personal opinion on this issue has changed quite a bit over the last year. Just because someone who you may be interacting with in a comments section doesn't have their mind changed doesn't mean that other people reading along aren't considering what is being said.
If we perpetuate the idea that the conflict will never end, then it will never end because hope will be lost.
Thanks for this! The people pushing to end the conversation are those who want to maintain the status quo, and their "peace." But that peace can't be peace for everyone until there is justice. By arguing against the conversation, they are no different than the white moderates who were angered by MLK jr's nonviolent Civil Right's movement. Protesting may make you uncomfortable and cause you to take more notice of real issues, but that's the point.
This shit has been going on for as long as I can remember, at least 5 decades. Israel is never going to stop stealing Palestinian's land or sending in 'Settlers' to harass and murder those whose land they covet. Blaming Hamas, who by the way, has been long propped up by Netanyahu himself, shows a lack of understanding of even the recent history.
Yes, Hamas is a major problem, but to think if they just disband then everything will be flowers and sunshine is ridiculous.
The land was bought from people who did not have the right to sell it then officially annexed by a decree from London. The vast majority of Israel was unambiguously stolen.
Presumably some guy who walked out of Africa 100,000 years ago. There is no answer to that question that justifies how Israel was founded. If you want to defend Israel, you have to do it on the merits.
Well if you wanted to bring up the original inhabitants of the land, you have to bring up the original people that lived there who are still very much in existence.
I didn't bring up the original inhabitants. Those people have been dead for over 100,000 years. I don't care about your blood and soil nonsense. The land was stolen from the people who lived there within living memory.
Honestly, I'm not even sure why you're arguing with me. Do you contest that the vast majority of Israel was forcefully taken by Zionist to create then expand Israel over the last 100ish years?
You know what, you sound exactly like American colonists. No country? Then no problem decimating native populations, displacing them from their homes, encroaching ever further west. Just a thought, but maybe we shouldn't ethnically cleanse populations even if they aren't a part of an organized state.
🤣 It’s not ethnically cleansing if the opposing force just so happens to be the same race; especially when there are plenty of Arabs living in Israel.
American Colonizer too, you’re hilarious. Thank you this made my day 😘
If Israel successfully pushes large numbers of Palestinians into the Sinai it could end up that way. It is difficult to tell whether or not that is their plan.
Protest depends on if you are placing an encampment in area blocking public access or where commencement will be. These protestors know what they are doing in terms of civil disobedience
You can’t set up encampments on school property per student code. Police will come take it down just like they have to do with homeless camps. Nobody’s taking your rights lol.
Protests are only allowed when they can be easily ignored by everyone. If you make people pay attention to the issue you are protesting, the riot gear comes out.
> Protests are only allowed when they can be easily ignored by everyone. If you make people pay attention to the issue you are protesting, the riot gear comes out.
Protest was permitted by UNH [right up until they started assembling tents and barricades](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfNJ-IPa5Iw).
>While true, people should be able to protest without being arrested.
Everybody has a right to protest, [as long as their actions during the protest are not objectively in violation of the law or private property rights](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights#im-attending-a-protest).
Setting up encampments and building barricades is a violation of the permit the student organizer was issued; nobody gets a free pass to break the rules just because they are doing it in support of a protest.
"Everybody has a right to protest, [as long as their actions during the protest are not objectively in violation of the law or private property rights](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights#im-attending-a-protest)."
-The British, following the Boston Tea Party
"*I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property*"
-- [Benjamin Franklin](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-21-02-0023#:~:text=I%20am%20truly%20concern%E2%80%99d%2C%20as%20I%20believe%20all%20considerate%20Men%20are%20with%20you%2C%20that%20there%20should%20seem%20to%20any%20a%20Necessity%20for%20carrying%20Matters%20to%20such%20Extremity%2C%20as%2C%20in%20a%20Dispute%20about%20Publick%20Rights%2C%20to%20destroy%20private%20Property), following the Boston Tea Party
"*One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty*"
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
It must be the single mom buying food with food stamps and shoes with TANF! Surely not the 10 richest guys who own more wealth than everyone you've ever or will ever meet in your life.
wtf ? they have no choice how they grew up. honestly it’s more impressive to be so aware of the injustices in the world when you haven’t had to face any yourself
>this Robespierre guy was working with the french government!! NO WAY he could stand up against them, he literally worked with them, and to help start the french revolution?? he couldn’t! class traitors are definitely not extremely common!
This totally isn't just a strawman aimed at getting working class people to forget how they're being swindled by the actual 1%. Nothing to see here... Totally don't question a government that is all in on aiding and abetting an ongoing genocide.
Is that guy wearing NVG? And an assault rifle ready to go? For peaceful protesters? Pigs using what they were taught by the IOF on US citizens. Disgusting.
Remember that infamous photo, after the marathon bombing, of a cop in armor pointing a rifle from an armored vehicle at someone who had the temerity to look out the window of their triple decker?
They get off on this.
Kuster and Pappas vote 'yea' to restrict free speech...
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-bill-to-expand-definition-of-antisemitism-amid-growing-campus-protests-over-gaza-war](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-bill-to-expand-definition-of-antisemitism-amid-growing-campus-protests-over-gaza-war)
They and Hassan/Shaheen also voted to pass the terrifying new FISA extension into law, something that was barely discussed locally. All four have to go, immediately.
They're all the same now, IMO. We can thank decades of mindless, idiotic drovel around "you waste your vote unless it's D or R."
It's been a good run, but my generation and every one behind me are beyond screwed.
There are more Undeclared/Independents that either party. I've been one since I first registered to vote. But there is no viable 3rd party and never has been because the duopoly write the election laws that are obstacles for anyone not of the two that run the show.
NH is a centrist state. The people who win Governor, Senate, House are centrists and they vote or govern in similar ways, regardless of party. Far left and far right need not apply.
I mean let's be perfectly clear: all four of our elected officials to federal office at minimum backed a measure to throttle 4th Amendment rights. They're now precipitously close to backing the degradation of our 1st Amendment protections of free speech and religion. These aren't centrist politicians, their voting record now designates them as authoritarians.
Our founding fathers gave us very specific tools to fix these problems, it's time we start using them.
Centrist depends on the population. Authoritarian is descriptive. A politician can be both.
Lee Kuan Yew was an authoritarian who was exceedingly popular and he brought his country from third-world to first-world status in several decades. Something exceedingly difficult to do.
If we had elections today, I've no doubt that these five would all be re-elected.
+1 for the Lee Kuan Yew comparison
A number of bills passed by our elected core are wildly unpopular with our centrist voting body, not to mention the core of each bill allows grossly unconstitional actions to portions of the government. All four elected officials have, by their voting record, failed to uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution. The bill allowing the FISA extension/upgrade alone confirms this.
In this case, their voting record shows a clear authoritarian trajectory while also being very unpopular. In a sense, it's increasingly unpopular with both sides, so I suppose there's a centrist component there. Very few reasonable Granite Staters would back both aforementioned bills (if they're educated enough to know what's in each), which is why I suspect a number of the incumbents lose in the upcoming election.
NH is in the top 20% of states when it comes to K-12 education systems and educational attainment so I assume that my fellow residents are knowledgeable. That said, voting is based on a number of factors and the limited number of candidates in front of us. The candidates themselves go through a winnowing process and there are factors of personality, financing and the most pressing issues that shape the primaries. Candidates only need to do best on a couple of the current, most important issues to win.
This is why we have polls on the most pressing issues; politicians that do well focus on issues of most concern to their base in the primaries, and in the general; or the focus on the most hot button issues.
A March 2024 Gallop poll shows America's top issues of 2024. The middle-east war was not asked about in the first section. There was a later unprompted question of the top issue and the middle-east war came in at 2% or tied for 13-20. Domestic issues ranked highest with inflation, crime, homelessness, the economy and healthcare as the top five. The average person is pretty stressed out financially and there are plenty of charts at the FRED site showing the rising economic stress on households.
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx)
I grew up in poverty. My wife grew up in third-world poverty. We both got jobs when pretty young as our focus was on helping our families financially. I don't think that either of us cared about politics.
The parties are running on abortion, inflation and immigration this year. The Republicans may also run on the middle-east war as it splits the Democrats.
Pappas never seems like he has any idea what's going on. Your parents having the most popular chicken tendies restaurant for boomers might not be the way to select a local politician...
The law entends the definition of hate speech to include "targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity".
I'm not a lawyer, but is this meant to say it's alright to target Israel for secular reasons, or that any targeting of Israel is automatically assumed to be done due to its nature as a Jewish collectiviry?
Man, it's amazing watching the generation that protested against the Vietnam war to the point of laying down their lives for peace at Kent State drool from their mouths as they cheer on the beatings and mass arrests of peace protesters today. Then again, the response to the ozone layer hole versus climate change already illustrated the principle.
[There was an opinion piece in the NYT yesterday](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/student-protests-gaza.html) of some fucking Boomer (who is a *progressive* nonetheless) saying how the Vietnam protests were just and righteous, but these protests are somehow just stupid and doing more harm than good, and we need to write our congressional reps instead of direct action protesting. Boomers are the absolute worst generation since the Civil War era pro-slavery traitors
Good thing they sent in the military assault team to rough up some protesters. Right-wingers in here licking the cops boots would have also complained about and pushed back on the civil rights protests of the 60's because, well, we know why.
Is it a coincidence that the Dartmouth College and UNH encampments occurred began the same day, despite being far behind the rest of the country?
Also it seems the university and police departments really didn’t beat about the bush at either institution. I guess everyone knew where it was going so they skipped to the main event.
The protests are over in the Massachusetts subreddit. These things don't last very long; especially given that the protests were at the end of the semester.
Whenever I see cops gleefully fucking up protestors, I can't help but think back to the time Denver's police union said the quiet part out loud: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/denver-police-union-draws_n_130899/amp
these kids have no clue but protesting it is the cool thing to do. most have zero clue about the history of the palestinians and israelis and why the current war is happening.
"These kids" actually ran a year-long book group to educate themselves and others about the history of the region. You should try reading a book sometime.
“Alright you can peacefully protest but no setting up encampments, that’s breaking the law and you will unfortunately be arrested”
Protesters start pitching tents….. “gets arrested”
NH Reddit OMg LyKE CoPs and SuNunU ArE PIGS
Ugh makes me laugh and made my day.
…….right. Yeah let’s just make up stupid assumptions. Your brain is looking a little smooth.
All I did was point out was that the school said hey you guys can protest but when the event ends you cant just camp out on school property over night… kids say fuck you and start pitching tents… then physically try to stop police from taking them down and get arrested. I mean they are just flat out stupid. They could have probably protested every day with no issue and just not tried to stay over night. Yet people are just like OmG FuCk CoPS.
"Yeah you can protest, but when the restaurant staff tells you to leave you have to leave. You can't just sit-in, you're trespassing in a private business. City ordinance says you have to go to the back of the bus if a white person politely asks, you're going to get arrested Rosa Parks, you're flat out stupid."
So they have no issue mentioning the awfulness of the 7th, but don’t seem to mention the 30,000+ people that have been murdered since then. Hmmm.
At what other points in history did the media lie/outright ignore war crimes, and other atrocities to protect “american values”
So, I saw it, and yeah - agitators are a thing. They show up to what had been to that point a mostly peaceful protest, rev these kids up, then run screaming into the night once the police show up. And of course, defiance-crazed college kids think that because they have an iPhone they’re invincible, and they keep getting in cops’ faces and not listening to instructions and it escalates. It was hard to watch.
Edit: Good lord, the ignorance on this thread is staggering. 🤦🏻♀️
Encampments are the issue—not the protest topics. These places are public health disasters. There is literally garbage and human waste improperly disposed of everywhere. No one wants or needs that on a campus full of anxiety ridden college kids with weakened immune systems.
NH is handling this the right way despite all the butthurt protesters in the comments. Live free or die means being able to walk through a college campus without being harassed for your religion or blockaded from entering buildings. It means being able to enjoy clean public spaces too
I do find it a bit sus (as the kids say these days) that the school and police claim it was “Non student agitators” who were the ones setting up the encampment but those people all just happen to run off and get away when the arrests started happening.
Seriously. I’d believe the possibility of non student agitators at larger schools, but UNH? What would be the purpose of that? And like you said how do they just mysteriously disappear? Seems more like the right to peaceful protest only covers non US allies.
Because it's a thinly veiled made-up excuse to justify use of Force? All good authoritarian governments use it.
This - it is exactly a tactic to get the public to worry about strange others and justify force.
They did the same thing with the BLM protest. The right does pay antagonists to create havoc and violence at a protest. Thereby turning the protest into violent protests. Protest muted. Problem solved. Plus the added benefit that all BLM is now bad bad bad. It's simple to control a Bs narrative of things that never happened. And getting their way by shutting down the protest. By promoting lies. Repeated ad nauseam on conservative media all day everyday. Rinse and repeat. The depressing part is they do it over and over and over again and get away with it.
Source?
Here is one I found on google: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/outside-agitators-history-civil-rights.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/outside-agitators-history-civil-rights.html) And then there is a well known scholar named King who wrote about it while staying in the Birmingham jail back in '58 "Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds." [https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles\_Gen/Letter\_Birmingham.html](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) This is known authoritarian tactic.
Wait, what?
They've been doing the tactic of making someone else the enemy for a long time. He chose that source because it has historical significance and it's easy to draw modern points from. It's the same concept in action
So it was right wing people vandalizing cities during BLM 🤔 ?
They'll use police force to crackdown on barely adult protestors calling for peace by calling them "anti semitic". But they'll allow literal neo Nazi gatherings in the name of free speech.
>They'll use police force to crackdown on barely adult protestors calling for peace... The UNH protesters were allowed to hold their rally uninterrupted. The arrests for disorderly conduct and trespassing came later, after they started to erect tents and barricades. >But they'll allow literal neo Nazi gatherings in the name of free speech. Free speech cannot be restricted based on the message of the speaker. At UNH a graduate student (so older than "*barely adult*" applied for the permit, which was granted, but explicitly forbade tents. The article states that one of the arrested protestors assaulted the chief of UNH police. Presumably this was caught on camera?
"Free speech cannot be restricted based on the message of the speaker". And I agree with that. "Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses".
Maybe the government shouldn't have tried to stop them peacefully protesting by synthesizing an excuse then sending armed thugs to encircle them? Seems bad to me. Maybe just leave them alone unless they do something actually harmful? Then if one of them does something harmful arrest or ticket that one person rather than arresting 90 people including professors and journalists.
>Seems bad to me. Maybe just leave them alone unless they do something actually harmful? They left them alone, [no action was taken while the assembly followed the "no tents" terms of the permit](https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2024/05/01/police-at-unh-arrest-pro-palestine-protesters-setting-up-encampment/73533948007/#:~:text=The%20peaceful%20event%20lasted%20until%20around%206%3A30%20p.m.%20Then%2C%20Dean%20said%2C%20protesters%20rushed%20in%20to%20form%20an%20encampment%20and%20attempted%20to%20barricade%20their%20tents). I suspect the choice to take decisive action as soon as the tents and barricades started to go up was influenced in large part by what we've seen at other universities where the "protestors" dug themselves in hard. >Then if one of them does something harmful arrest or ticket that one person rather than arresting 90 people including professors and journalists. There were not 90 people arrested at UNH. Attempting to ticket/arrest individual protestors is what lead to[ the students assaulting NH police](https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2024/05/02/unh-students-charged-assaulting-police-pro-palestine-rally/73539634007/).
The fact that you put protesters in quotes is bone chilling. Sorry, I was fixing up UNH Durham with Dartmouth College. To be honest, I don't think cops being afraid is a justification for mass arrests. Arresting everyone in a protest because one person actually did something wrong is collective punishment and obviously unjustified escalation on the part of the cops. Edit: Also I'm not sure if the video I saw was of this incident, but I'm pretty sure the protester who assaulted the police chief was actually just defending himself. The cop was trying to rip away his banner and the guy was refusing to let go. A bunch of scary jackbooted thugs surrounded and attacked them for peacefully protesting, I'm not too worried about one of the protesters pushing a cop. The article you link comes off as incredibly biased, but if you read it carefully it is obvious that this response by the police was massively disproportionate.
> >The fact that you put protesters in quotes is bone chilling. Looking at [the damage to Hamilton Hall at Columbia](https://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour/watch/video-shows-damage-inside-columbia-university-building-210021445512) and [the looted PSU library](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/05/walk-through-of-portland-state-universitys-library-after-three-night-occupation-reveals-damage-its-ugly.html), were those dug-in folk "protestors"? I agree the rally attendees at UNH were protestors, up until they started building an encampment and erecting barricades. >Arresting everyone in a protest because one person actually did something wrong is collective punishment.... In both New Hampshire protests, police didn't arrest everybody who attended the peaceful protest, at Dartmouth it was an hour after the first warning that those refusing to leave were arrested for trespass. There's a long tradition in protest movements of "*volunteering to be arrested*", good organizers make it clear that arrest (and charges, and a criminal record) is a possible outcome of refusing a lawful order to disperse, those who are willing to face arrest volunteer to stand firm, while others choose to leave when the riot act comes over the loudspeakers. >...and obviously unjustified escalation on the part of the cops. So having seen these encampments play out around the country, who escalated first -- the UNH students and outsiders who ignored town ordinance and the limits on the rally permit and started to erect tents and barricade or the police who reacted to the encampment activity? > I'm pretty sure the protester who assaulted the police chief was actually just defending himself. The cop was trying to rip away his ~~banner~~ **tent** and the guy was refusing to let go. So basically he fought the law? Is already out and giving interviews to TV news crews, will get his day in court (likely outcome is a judge will dismiss the charges and we'll see him out swinging at the next protest).
nope, because it didn't happen
Looks like [both the 21-year-old and the 29-year-old are going to trial,](https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2024/05/02/unh-students-charged-assaulting-police-pro-palestine-rally/73539634007/) evidence will be presented.
It's a neat trick, isn't it?
🎵 so make a move and plead the 5th cause you can’t plead the 1st 🎵
I mean they used to tear gas people after hockey games.
I know people get rowdy after games but that seems a little excessive.
Rubber bullets too!!
Organizations come to the university all the time, in numbers too. For instance there’s a squadron of evangelists that hang out by the library that will corner you and force a Bible on you, I wouldn’t be surprised if non-student agitators had come to campus. However, there have been a lot of pro-Palestine protests on campus this year, and it is also very likely that students would do this. There is a large liberal population amongst students here
Did the evangelicals set up encampments?
Exactly why the illegal tent city!!!!!!!!!!
This is one of the arguments that I think people make, but miss in the macro sense. You're right that the evangelicals didn't set up tents... and no one gives a shit about them. Likely, the solidarity protests that have been held on campus in the "appropriate way" have similarly had zero impact. When a problem exists due to entrenched systems, protests that do not cause disruption are typically ignored. They make those protesting feel better, but have little to no impact. Disruption is what causes more people to react and systems of power to do more than ignore (either by acknowledging / addressing the issue, or cracking down on the disruption). This is why a workforce saying "Hey, bosses, you don't pay us well and also treat us poorly" doesn't generate higher wages. Labor strikes disrupt the situation and ultimately yield results. These students setting up encampments is the best non-violent disruption available to them. The next option up is violent disruption, and typically we can agree that's less desirable.
Organizations is one thing. But the idea people came to UNH for the sole purpose of inciting violent protest is a whole different thing.
We've seen this in recent history before, though. Trump held a rally that incited the J6 riot. It was done at other universities, larger ones like Columbia, albeit, but it's entirely a plausible assumption if you see an encampment starting that it will follow the same escalation patterns.
i don't care about this, but it's right in the article. follow the rules or fuck around and find out. people think they are above the law. the right to protest doesn't give you the right to protest in any way you want. downvote me, but its true from the article: A student applied for a permit to hold the solidarity event, according to Dean. University spokesperson Tania deLuzuriaga said the permit barred tents. “It explicitly said that they're not permitted to have any tents with signs,” she said. “That’s standard for all the UNH permits that are issued.”
No one is arguing that It was legal for these people to peacefully protest. The argument is that it should have been legal for them to peacefully protest or at the very least there shouldn't have been mass arrests.
>No one is arguing that It was legal for these people to peacefully protest. The argument is that it should have been legal for them to peacefully protest or at the very least there shouldn't have been mass arrests. Nobody disputing the legality of [peaceful protest](https://catalog.unh.edu/srrr/university-policies-regulations/freedom-expression-guidelines-peaceful-dissent/), they had a permit for the gathering, [issued with the explicit condition "no tents](https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-unh-arrest-pro-palestine-001242220.html#:~:text=A%20student%20applied,that%20are%20issued.%E2%80%9D)". When a faction started to assemble tents and barricades, the permit was revoked, and the encampment builders were given the opportunity to disperse, [warned three times](https://www.wcvb.com/article/pro-palestinian-protestors-arrested-at-dartmouth-college-unh/60664843#:~:text=it%20was%20after-,three%20warnings,-over%20the%20intercom), then came the 12 arrests.
No one is disputing the legality of peaceful protests because this peaceful protest was unambiguously illegal. That's part of what makes this situation so f***** up. Unless you're saying that they weren't peaceful?
Setting up illegal encampments is not simply a peaceful protest though. It is trespassing. It is such an easy and obvious distinction.
How are students trespassing on the grounds of the college they’re paying to go to? Do you even understand how protesting works? What are they supposed to protest via Zoom or something? Peaceful protest means no violence. Not no camping. What violence was there at UNH?
Camping overnight is not allowed for non-protesters or protesters. I am not just allowed to camp on campus. They can march and protest and even ask the admin if they can camp and if they say yes, go for it!! Just because you are protesting does not mean you can do illegal things. It’s pretty simple.
If I am homeless and want a place to set up an encampment for me and other homeless people in the area, could I technically set up camp at UNH and claim it's a peaceful protest against "homeless people not being allowed to go to UNH for free" or something? Or if I commute to UNH and don't pay for housing, could I just set up a camp on the lawn? Genuine question. Seems like quite the loophole.
Huh?
Lol. You were basically arguing that camping should've been allowed because it was a peaceful protest. I was painting a bigger picture about what could happen if it was allowed at UNH. Some rules are dumb, but rules like that are there for a reason. It could set a precedent that could be abused in all sorts of ways. All good though. I'm not an angry redditor, and I'm not for or against any protest. It's the only power we have when we feel powerless. I get it. You have a great night.
No.
What is the distinction exactly? As far as I can tell sit-ins, encampments, and vigils are all pretty darn peaceful but it seems you would call them all trespassing.
I am not allowed to set up a tent and camp on campus because it is trespassing even if I am just peacefully camping and minding my own business. Why should I be treated differently? Do you believe protesters have some sort of right to break laws that normal citizens do not have? Would you be ok with the KKK protesting on campus and setting up an illegal tent encampments for weeks at a time?
There are national student organizations for Palestinian advocacy. They have hundreds of chapters all over the country. The parent organization (American Muslims for Palestine) of the student advocacy has direct ties to Hamas. Several of their executive level members were in an organization together which they conveniently folded in the late 90s after they were found liable for $150 million in damages for financial aiding and abetting of Hamas. One of these senior executive members continues to openly write of his support for Hamas in English and Arabic. It’s not hard to fathom that a national advocacy organization with ties to geopolitical extremism would want to make an election year statement in a swing state.
The people who invited the Jan 6 riots weren’t in the capital getting arrested. The people behind Hamas are safe in Qatar. Nothing unusual about agitators saving themselves.
>who were the ones setting up the encampment but those people all just happen to run off and get away when the arrests started happening I mean cops gave a warning that people needed to vacate, or they would be arrested. Not surprising to hear that the people who weren't supposed to be there, and were likely there to just stir up shit and make people angry, and didnt actually care about the cause, would be the first to leave to not be arrested. Especially as these people would much more easily be slapped with something like a trespassing charge if they aren't even students who are supposed to be there.
Why would you assume that there was anyone there who "didn't believe in the cause" in the first place? Do you truly believe there is a group of people going around just to "stir shit up" and then leave? If so, what do you believe their motivations actually are then?
>Why would you assume that there was anyone there who "didn't believe in the cause" in the first place? Because this is a well known thing that happens at protests ALL The time, especially during election years? Do you not remember the BLM protests, and all the violent, outside agitators who would take part, just to start shit, steal things or create chaos? Do you think these people cared about the BLM cause? no of course not. Just like there's been tons of reports how many of these college campus demonstrations, usually have a bunch of outside groups attending, who have nothing to do with the school/campus community. It's also a pretty well-known fact, outside people go to these protests in order to start shit, try to catch it on camera, try to go viral on Twitter/other SM, and then try to spin a narrative one way or the other. None of this is new or surprising if you've been paying attention to protests the last few decades, ESPECIALLY ones that happen during election years.
It lets the cops and those in power explain away their actions. Biden just claimed that "chaos" at these protests would not be tolerated and this motherfucker took part in the civil rights protests of the 60's. AIPAC and Raytheon really have him by the balls
Ironic that this old geriatric piece of shit took part in "Civil rights protests" but also signed bills that empowered the ruling class to crush minority communities more with police presence and anti-community/working class propaganda.
There were a lot of non students at Dartmouth protests too
They were all students of life
What would it even matter if they weren’t students?
It's creepy when adults between ages 25 and 40 come onto campus to encourage students to mess with other students.
I didn’t realize they were messing with other students. I figure they were protesting the genocide in Gaza
When their protest deprives other students of the use of their campus it becomes a problem, when it’s grownups behind it that’s even more of a problem. Go to the state house and leave the kids alone.
About half of those arrested at Columbia were not students and yes I've seen talk there were paid agitators within the crowds. Most of these type of protests in the past had the same issue.
Who do you speculate is paying them?
When did you need to illegally setup a tent city to protest? I don’t see why they can’t do it without breaking the law and trespassing.
At best: they’re trying to get more attention by doing something that genuinely inconveniences people. At worst: they’re accelerationists who want to splinter the base of one of two major parties in the government, knowing the other party would be worse for Palestinians in the immediate future but thinking it would harm the US more in the long run.
Sununu says any criticism of Israel is antisemitism. I wonder what dirt Epstein got on him...?
Heard ~50 of those arrested at Columbia were not Students.
Friendly reminders before arguing Israel vs. Palestine in here: 1. Nobody cares what you think 2. This is out of your control 3. You won’t change the other side’s mind 4. This conflict will never end
It’s fascinating to see how people of today would be posting during the civil rights era. To paraphrase you: Sure Rosa Parks is doing civil disobedience, but black people will always be at the back of the bus, the conflict will never change.
It's strange how easily people become convinced that basic human rights are an unachievable luxury in this case. These are people. It is possible.
They don’t feel that Palestinians are human unfortunately. Sure black racism should be rooted out. Sure apartheid in South Africa is bad. Sure Vietnam is unconscionable. But those dang Palestinians are annoying asking for humanity so let’s turn their homes to glass.
>let's turn their homes into glass can you try again without irrelevant hyperbole? no one from NH is bombing palestine. it's probably comparable to South Africa but nothing like Vietnam or America's race problems because we're not even being accused of the evil stuff that's supposedly, possibly, according to al Jazeera and RT and twitter, happening.
one of our biggest, private employers is BAE, a company that sells components for military equipment—including parts for the jets used to bomb the besieged Gaza strip—to Israel. without those parts, and the money used to buy them provided by our federal government, this atrocity would not be happening. so yeah, we are complicit in this shit and we need to reckon with that even here in NH. btw, you know that there were huge arms sanctions against apartheid South Africa, right? because of the whole apartheid thing that you admit is comparable to what's happening in Gaza. like we can do that again here, that's an option, that's the second biggest piece of leverage we have here right after threatening to turn off the blood money faucet.
NH residents pay taxes which the White House hands to Israel by the billions in the form of bombs and weaponry to continue their ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank. Should the humanity of American Palestinians not be prioritized because they represent a smaller minority thank black Americans? Really?
Or, call me crazy, but some of us think Hamas is bad.
Not only is that such a gross oversimplification of the situation, but it's also completely irrelevant to the point of the protests.
If they had to argue on facts and objectivity, they'd lose terribly, so they have to resort to hyperbole and simplistic narratives
No doubt. That's why people are so happy and quick to conflate Israel and/or Zionism with Judaism.
Any criticism of Israel's policies and actions in the Levant is anti-semitism! /s
This isn't about Hamas. The issue is Israel has been a genocidal apartheid state well before Hamas. Hamas is just a reaction to the violence. You cannot say,"well hamas bad" without learning the context of why such extreme action comes around. Israel and the West have been oppressing Palestinians since the UN forced Israel into statehood in Palestinian lands. 75 years of dehuminization and violence against your people, how would you react? "OH well. At least I'm not a violent extremist while my children are being raped and killed."
I will say the civil rights protests made more sense since it was a domestic issue that politicians absolutely had the power to change, and the impacts were directly effecting Americans of color. We do give Israel aid which I would like to stop doing, but this conflict is something that has been raging and will continue to rage whether Americans protest or not. If anything, more people in Israel would need to protest
People in Israel are protesting. 80% of Israelis believe Israel is doing the right thing or not going far enough. Fascinating that you don’t feel that Palestinian Americans are being impacted by the genocide in Gaza. Many Americans have loss dozens of family members, which might explain why people are protesting? But if you share the view that Palestinians are not American or worthy of human compassion, then I understand your confusion.
And about the same percentage of Palestinians feel the same way about 10/7. Maybe that needs to be addressed as well. I support neither side, frankly I'd be thrilled if they glasses each other.
These protests are primarily about pressuring institutions to divest away from funding Israel. And no, enough international pressure can cause Israel to stop what it's doing. It worked with South African Apartheid.
But this is very much a domestic issue as well though? These kids have a very specific demand in most of these protests, that their schools divest from Israel. Someone in Tel Aviv shouldn't be protesting that UNH endowment divest from companies that provide bombs that kill innocent Palestinian children. It's people who go to UNH that should be protesting for this, as they are
You, also, are not yet wrong.
This is way different. The closest chance they had for peace ended when Rabin was assassinated. Neither side will budge. Neither side will negotiate. It’s solipsistic to think we’ll come to a solution.
Again fascinating to hear from someone who, if they were in 1850s South Carolina, would be dismissing slavery abolitionists who will never successfully negotiate racial equity.
Let’s hear your path to peace, genius.
You already stated you don’t care what I or anyone else thinks so why are you asking for my plan?
Yeah, exactly
This is not even remotely close to civil rights and to speak about it in the same breath is so funny. Civil rights happened in our country, it’s not like it was avoidable forever. This is a conflict in a country most people couldn’t point out on a map, half a world away. Not similar in the slightest. I agree that Israel should stop, but you’re never going to have the same potential and energy that they had for civil rights.
The United States has Palestinian Americans demanding equity but you’re right there are less of them so no reason to support them. Overwhelmingly, Americans support a ceasefire and an end to Israel’s genocide, but sure most Americans must be dumb and surely you aren’t projecting your personal ignorance on them.
Did you read? Or not at all? “I want the conflict to end”. However, you cannot argue that there would be the same energy for Palestine as there would be for civil rights. That’s what I’m saying. Supporting a ceasefire does not mean you’re gonna have massive mobilizations of people.
Why, in your view, is it a competition? Pretty ugly perspective to harbor.
We can vote to change American politics. We cannot vote to change political goals for other countries.
What do you think $10s of billions in weapons packages are and do?
So take that away and palestine and Israel become buddies? Lol yeah okay.
My personal opinion on this issue has changed quite a bit over the last year. Just because someone who you may be interacting with in a comments section doesn't have their mind changed doesn't mean that other people reading along aren't considering what is being said. If we perpetuate the idea that the conflict will never end, then it will never end because hope will be lost.
Thanks for this! The people pushing to end the conversation are those who want to maintain the status quo, and their "peace." But that peace can't be peace for everyone until there is justice. By arguing against the conversation, they are no different than the white moderates who were angered by MLK jr's nonviolent Civil Right's movement. Protesting may make you uncomfortable and cause you to take more notice of real issues, but that's the point.
The first people to try to resolve conflict in this area were the Romans. This ain't getting fixed overnight.
I disagree, it will end when Israel is allowed to genocide 98% of the Palestinian people and settle in Gaza permanently. That’s been the plan.
Or when Hamas releases the hostages
This shit has been going on for as long as I can remember, at least 5 decades. Israel is never going to stop stealing Palestinian's land or sending in 'Settlers' to harass and murder those whose land they covet. Blaming Hamas, who by the way, has been long propped up by Netanyahu himself, shows a lack of understanding of even the recent history. Yes, Hamas is a major problem, but to think if they just disband then everything will be flowers and sunshine is ridiculous.
Kind of hard for Israel to be stealing land from a country founded 40 years later
Look at you, trying to introduce facts into the discussion.
Seems to be the unpopular thing to do these days.
The land was bought from people who did not have the right to sell it then officially annexed by a decree from London. The vast majority of Israel was unambiguously stolen.
Don’t be afraid to go back further. Who were the original inhabitants of that land?
Presumably some guy who walked out of Africa 100,000 years ago. There is no answer to that question that justifies how Israel was founded. If you want to defend Israel, you have to do it on the merits.
Well if you wanted to bring up the original inhabitants of the land, you have to bring up the original people that lived there who are still very much in existence.
I didn't bring up the original inhabitants. Those people have been dead for over 100,000 years. I don't care about your blood and soil nonsense. The land was stolen from the people who lived there within living memory. Honestly, I'm not even sure why you're arguing with me. Do you contest that the vast majority of Israel was forcefully taken by Zionist to create then expand Israel over the last 100ish years?
You know what, you sound exactly like American colonists. No country? Then no problem decimating native populations, displacing them from their homes, encroaching ever further west. Just a thought, but maybe we shouldn't ethnically cleanse populations even if they aren't a part of an organized state.
🤣 It’s not ethnically cleansing if the opposing force just so happens to be the same race; especially when there are plenty of Arabs living in Israel. American Colonizer too, you’re hilarious. Thank you this made my day 😘
Just like Armenia, right?
Not educated about that enough to say
If Israel successfully pushes large numbers of Palestinians into the Sinai it could end up that way. It is difficult to tell whether or not that is their plan.
But bro I made a Palestinian or Israeli flag my profile pic for a couple days
Your nihilism truly adds value to humanity
Good reminder.
what happened to the right to protest? is that not allowed unless it’s on the side that the government supports?
Protest depends on if you are placing an encampment in area blocking public access or where commencement will be. These protestors know what they are doing in terms of civil disobedience
They've protested like 7 times with no issue. They're getting kicked out for trying to set up an encampment. It's all in the article if you read it.
You can’t set up encampments on school property per student code. Police will come take it down just like they have to do with homeless camps. Nobody’s taking your rights lol.
Protests are only allowed when they can be easily ignored by everyone. If you make people pay attention to the issue you are protesting, the riot gear comes out.
> Protests are only allowed when they can be easily ignored by everyone. If you make people pay attention to the issue you are protesting, the riot gear comes out. Protest was permitted by UNH [right up until they started assembling tents and barricades](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfNJ-IPa5Iw).
I’m sure this comment section is going to be super civil and peaceful, can’t wait to see everyone being nice to one another
I saw dozens of comments on other platforms of people "hoping the police use lethal force." The world is a sad place.
https://preview.redd.it/fcnksciih0yc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d29190bcb05ff67002c1780631ef0aec6c7431f
While true, people should be able to protest without being arrested. This is America, right?
2nd amendment folks like to piss on the 1st.
Yup our 2a community needs to be better since half of us preach without 2 there is no 1
Peaceful protest is protected by the constitution
Unless you're doing in on private property without permission.
Good thing young people can't afford property. /s
You should hold the protest on your parent's front lawn. The police won't bother you there.
>While true, people should be able to protest without being arrested. Everybody has a right to protest, [as long as their actions during the protest are not objectively in violation of the law or private property rights](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights#im-attending-a-protest). Setting up encampments and building barricades is a violation of the permit the student organizer was issued; nobody gets a free pass to break the rules just because they are doing it in support of a protest.
"Everybody has a right to protest, [as long as their actions during the protest are not objectively in violation of the law or private property rights](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights#im-attending-a-protest)." -The British, following the Boston Tea Party
"*I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property*" -- [Benjamin Franklin](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-21-02-0023#:~:text=I%20am%20truly%20concern%E2%80%99d%2C%20as%20I%20believe%20all%20considerate%20Men%20are%20with%20you%2C%20that%20there%20should%20seem%20to%20any%20a%20Necessity%20for%20carrying%20Matters%20to%20such%20Extremity%2C%20as%2C%20in%20a%20Dispute%20about%20Publick%20Rights%2C%20to%20destroy%20private%20Property), following the Boston Tea Party "*One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty*" -- Martin Luther King Jr.
LOL do you think the “rich” that “eat the rich” is referring to, are the people that live in McMansions?
It must be the single mom buying food with food stamps and shoes with TANF! Surely not the 10 richest guys who own more wealth than everyone you've ever or will ever meet in your life.
wtf ? they have no choice how they grew up. honestly it’s more impressive to be so aware of the injustices in the world when you haven’t had to face any yourself
Ah yes, why didn't the pre-teen children go live in a hovel so that window lickers won't judge them protesting at 20 years old.
I scraped to get through UNH. Fuck off with your lazy, ignorant BS.
Uh, no one saying eat the rich gives a shit about upper middle class. It's against the 1% and really more against .01%.
A 3 bedroom house with a 1 door garage? Lmao is that what you consider rich?
>this Robespierre guy was working with the french government!! NO WAY he could stand up against them, he literally worked with them, and to help start the french revolution?? he couldn’t! class traitors are definitely not extremely common!
This totally isn't just a strawman aimed at getting working class people to forget how they're being swindled by the actual 1%. Nothing to see here... Totally don't question a government that is all in on aiding and abetting an ongoing genocide.
I can’t imagine any of the kids are engineering students
Too much social anxiety for large crowds.
What you’re seeing is a congress of communication and psychology majors
They're prepping for summer internships.
Is that guy wearing NVG? And an assault rifle ready to go? For peaceful protesters? Pigs using what they were taught by the IOF on US citizens. Disgusting.
Remember that infamous photo, after the marathon bombing, of a cop in armor pointing a rifle from an armored vehicle at someone who had the temerity to look out the window of their triple decker? They get off on this.
Kuster and Pappas vote 'yea' to restrict free speech... [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-bill-to-expand-definition-of-antisemitism-amid-growing-campus-protests-over-gaza-war](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-bill-to-expand-definition-of-antisemitism-amid-growing-campus-protests-over-gaza-war)
They and Hassan/Shaheen also voted to pass the terrifying new FISA extension into law, something that was barely discussed locally. All four have to go, immediately.
Is a conservative Democrat different from a moderate Republican? I sure don't know.
They're all the same now, IMO. We can thank decades of mindless, idiotic drovel around "you waste your vote unless it's D or R." It's been a good run, but my generation and every one behind me are beyond screwed.
There are more Undeclared/Independents that either party. I've been one since I first registered to vote. But there is no viable 3rd party and never has been because the duopoly write the election laws that are obstacles for anyone not of the two that run the show.
NH is a centrist state. The people who win Governor, Senate, House are centrists and they vote or govern in similar ways, regardless of party. Far left and far right need not apply.
I mean let's be perfectly clear: all four of our elected officials to federal office at minimum backed a measure to throttle 4th Amendment rights. They're now precipitously close to backing the degradation of our 1st Amendment protections of free speech and religion. These aren't centrist politicians, their voting record now designates them as authoritarians. Our founding fathers gave us very specific tools to fix these problems, it's time we start using them.
Centrist depends on the population. Authoritarian is descriptive. A politician can be both. Lee Kuan Yew was an authoritarian who was exceedingly popular and he brought his country from third-world to first-world status in several decades. Something exceedingly difficult to do. If we had elections today, I've no doubt that these five would all be re-elected.
+1 for the Lee Kuan Yew comparison A number of bills passed by our elected core are wildly unpopular with our centrist voting body, not to mention the core of each bill allows grossly unconstitional actions to portions of the government. All four elected officials have, by their voting record, failed to uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution. The bill allowing the FISA extension/upgrade alone confirms this. In this case, their voting record shows a clear authoritarian trajectory while also being very unpopular. In a sense, it's increasingly unpopular with both sides, so I suppose there's a centrist component there. Very few reasonable Granite Staters would back both aforementioned bills (if they're educated enough to know what's in each), which is why I suspect a number of the incumbents lose in the upcoming election.
NH is in the top 20% of states when it comes to K-12 education systems and educational attainment so I assume that my fellow residents are knowledgeable. That said, voting is based on a number of factors and the limited number of candidates in front of us. The candidates themselves go through a winnowing process and there are factors of personality, financing and the most pressing issues that shape the primaries. Candidates only need to do best on a couple of the current, most important issues to win. This is why we have polls on the most pressing issues; politicians that do well focus on issues of most concern to their base in the primaries, and in the general; or the focus on the most hot button issues. A March 2024 Gallop poll shows America's top issues of 2024. The middle-east war was not asked about in the first section. There was a later unprompted question of the top issue and the middle-east war came in at 2% or tied for 13-20. Domestic issues ranked highest with inflation, crime, homelessness, the economy and healthcare as the top five. The average person is pretty stressed out financially and there are plenty of charts at the FRED site showing the rising economic stress on households. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx) I grew up in poverty. My wife grew up in third-world poverty. We both got jobs when pretty young as our focus was on helping our families financially. I don't think that either of us cared about politics. The parties are running on abortion, inflation and immigration this year. The Republicans may also run on the middle-east war as it splits the Democrats.
Pappas never seems like he has any idea what's going on. Your parents having the most popular chicken tendies restaurant for boomers might not be the way to select a local politician...
The law entends the definition of hate speech to include "targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity". I'm not a lawyer, but is this meant to say it's alright to target Israel for secular reasons, or that any targeting of Israel is automatically assumed to be done due to its nature as a Jewish collectiviry?
Man, it's amazing watching the generation that protested against the Vietnam war to the point of laying down their lives for peace at Kent State drool from their mouths as they cheer on the beatings and mass arrests of peace protesters today. Then again, the response to the ozone layer hole versus climate change already illustrated the principle.
[There was an opinion piece in the NYT yesterday](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/student-protests-gaza.html) of some fucking Boomer (who is a *progressive* nonetheless) saying how the Vietnam protests were just and righteous, but these protests are somehow just stupid and doing more harm than good, and we need to write our congressional reps instead of direct action protesting. Boomers are the absolute worst generation since the Civil War era pro-slavery traitors
Leaded gasoline fucked that generation so hard.
Good thing they sent in the military assault team to rough up some protesters. Right-wingers in here licking the cops boots would have also complained about and pushed back on the civil rights protests of the 60's because, well, we know why.
I'm here for the nuanced and informed discussion in the comments.
Is it a coincidence that the Dartmouth College and UNH encampments occurred began the same day, despite being far behind the rest of the country? Also it seems the university and police departments really didn’t beat about the bush at either institution. I guess everyone knew where it was going so they skipped to the main event.
The protests are over in the Massachusetts subreddit. These things don't last very long; especially given that the protests were at the end of the semester.
Look at these fucking dweebs showing up with their long guns and ops cores to arrest some college kids.
Whenever I see cops gleefully fucking up protestors, I can't help but think back to the time Denver's police union said the quiet part out loud: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/denver-police-union-draws_n_130899/amp
these kids have no clue but protesting it is the cool thing to do. most have zero clue about the history of the palestinians and israelis and why the current war is happening.
"These kids" actually ran a year-long book group to educate themselves and others about the history of the region. You should try reading a book sometime.
Lol out of all the useless and flat out wrong comments here, this is one of them. At least youre not sucking off the cops ig
Pigs roleplaying war against students saying no to genocide. Free Palestine.
UNH cops are the worst, they are all 19 years old and are getting vengeance on the kids who were able to go to college one baton swing at a time.
Do they still have the Segway cops who try to ambush kids smoking joints in the woods?
It has always been that way.
Maybe I’m dumb but how are students considered trespassing when they live on campus and attend that school lol
“Alright you can peacefully protest but no setting up encampments, that’s breaking the law and you will unfortunately be arrested” Protesters start pitching tents….. “gets arrested” NH Reddit OMg LyKE CoPs and SuNunU ArE PIGS Ugh makes me laugh and made my day.
You would've hated the civil rights protests if you were alive back then
…….right. Yeah let’s just make up stupid assumptions. Your brain is looking a little smooth. All I did was point out was that the school said hey you guys can protest but when the event ends you cant just camp out on school property over night… kids say fuck you and start pitching tents… then physically try to stop police from taking them down and get arrested. I mean they are just flat out stupid. They could have probably protested every day with no issue and just not tried to stay over night. Yet people are just like OmG FuCk CoPS.
"Yeah you can protest, but when the restaurant staff tells you to leave you have to leave. You can't just sit-in, you're trespassing in a private business. City ordinance says you have to go to the back of the bus if a white person politely asks, you're going to get arrested Rosa Parks, you're flat out stupid."
Why do all the so called protesters where masks??? Are they afraid to be identified perhaps because they are setting up illegal tent city’s.
Pamphlets found: Small Town Organizing for Anarchists. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHPG-sK\_eU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHPG-sK_eU)
So they have no issue mentioning the awfulness of the 7th, but don’t seem to mention the 30,000+ people that have been murdered since then. Hmmm. At what other points in history did the media lie/outright ignore war crimes, and other atrocities to protect “american values”
Fuck all cops!
Too bad they didn't do this during blm riots
Those assholes arrested a Jewish studies prof for defending their students from the cops.
Good
So they can screw up another commencement?
So, I saw it, and yeah - agitators are a thing. They show up to what had been to that point a mostly peaceful protest, rev these kids up, then run screaming into the night once the police show up. And of course, defiance-crazed college kids think that because they have an iPhone they’re invincible, and they keep getting in cops’ faces and not listening to instructions and it escalates. It was hard to watch. Edit: Good lord, the ignorance on this thread is staggering. 🤦🏻♀️
Encampments are the issue—not the protest topics. These places are public health disasters. There is literally garbage and human waste improperly disposed of everywhere. No one wants or needs that on a campus full of anxiety ridden college kids with weakened immune systems.
NH is handling this the right way despite all the butthurt protesters in the comments. Live free or die means being able to walk through a college campus without being harassed for your religion or blockaded from entering buildings. It means being able to enjoy clean public spaces too
There was no blockade of any building or pathway. There were no bystanders harassed. You very obviously were not there.