Violence erupted at the University of California, Los Angeles after pro-Israeli counter-demonstrators attacked a pro-Palestinian campus encampment. Bubbling tensions on the campus boiled over following the alleged breach of a “buffer zone” between the rival groups.
That’s the term. They were counter-protesting the pro-Palestinian protesters. Sorry, what’s the problem?
Charging sleeping people with baseball bats isn’t normally considered a form of protest. Masked attackers would be a more neutral description.
When we protested the Iraq War very similarly, someone hung a noose in the camp the first night.
After that I was the one to stay up all night keeping watch.
If you had read past “counter-protesters”, it goes on to say, “…attack pro-Palestinian camp”
Yep, that was one of the sentences that showed how silly it is to describe attackers as protesters but there are plenty more.
They were there counter-protesting and then attacked the pro-palenstine protesters. Why do you object to an accurate description of the events?
It seems like you’re having a difficult time understanding this, maybe I can help. If another group of people showed up, and they had signs, and maybe bullhorns, and they started protesting the opposite of what the original people were protesting, they would be counter-protesting. Some heckling could even be involved.
When they show up wearing masks and wielding baseball bats, they are not counter-protestors. They are violent criminals. They did not show up to protest. They showed up to insight violence.
Im not, and your childish insults don’t make you right. There’s not dress code for protesters, and your No True Scotsman fallacy doesn’t win your argument any points. The Counter-protesters were counter-protesting, then they attacked the protesters. It’s a simple concept to grasp.
Just because it doesn’t tell the narrative you wish it to tell isn’t my fault. It’s just the facts as they happened, not an opinion piece.
Now go insult someone else for their ability to read.
not
you disingenuous, festering carbuncle.
Name-calling when you can’t come up with an argument. Typical
Removed by mod
Says the person who can only spew insults. Classy.
“Fireworks and tear gas flew through the night sky as masked counter-protesters attempted to tear down barricades, and struck campers with sticks and bats.”
That’s counter protesting in your world?
As I said in another comment:
“Counter-protester” describes who they were not what they were doing. That’s what the word “attack” is for. If you read the article it contains even more details.
I think people are suggesting the “counter protesters” aren’t “protesting” anything, they’re just straight up a mob attacking kids.
I understand that. That’s why I explained what the words mean.
The term that fits here is actually Terrorists.
I wasn’t making an argument, simply explaining what this headline meant.
You’re welcome to publish your own news articles if you think you can do better, but it doesn’t seem you could be objective.
Yes, we had established that the headline’s use of words was wrong, and then you came to chime in afterwards to argue in their favor. Nobody was confused about their intent before you came here. You added nothing but to contradict the previous user.
No, several people here feel that way. You and others have that opinion. Nobody gets do decide their own facts, however. But this is a news article, not an opinion piece, and objective reporting of facts is what was called for. You are free to disagree about that, but it doesn’t make you “right”.
Wrong. I didn’t argue in anyone’s “favor”. I merely pointed out what I said above: this is a news article, not an opinion piece, which reported on a group of protesters being attacked by a group of counter-protesters. How you or anyone may feel about that or those involved is opinion and doesn’t belong in a news article.
Well, that’s just demonstrably false, and if you don’t like that, or the contents of the article, that’s what the downvote button is for, but I didn’t write the article and am not to blame for it’s contents.
I’m seeing this comment pattern a lot lately where they take apart and quote the previous comment in an argument, often using nonsequitur bullshit responses. Is this the latest bot, or do the kids these days lack all originality? I don’t do that shit. I assume you already know what your previous comment was without quoting it back to you. Maybe I’m giving you too much credit?
I’m seeing this response a lot lately. Can’t write a rational counter argument, so out come the insults and/or accusations of being a bot.
Classy.
FWIW, I don’t hold it against you. This is a terrible, horrible subject and series of events, and I’m trying very hard not to be overly emotional about all of this. I very much do support the pro-Palestinian protesters, but it also think it’s important to keep facts straight and to keep a cool head when discussing these events.
I’m not your enemy.