Fireworks and tear gas flew through the air after masked pro-Israeli assailants tore down barricades.

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.

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      10·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, what’s wrong with killing people? As long as you have an excuse that’s good enough for you, you should always be able to kill as many people as you can. /s

    • Eol@sh.itjust.works
      101·
      7 months ago

      It’s going to happen eventually. Regardless of what the current protested issue is. It’s probably a natural inevitable next step. Hope things unfuck themselves before that though.

      • Որբունի@jlai.lu
        51·
        7 months ago

        I also find it very sad that it is turning sour but I find comfort in the fact that most of the fascist thugs I’ve seen are cowards who only find the courage to be violent in overwhelming force and numbers imbalances. Peaceful students who are known to not own guns are easy targets.

    • gregorumEnglish
      76·
      7 months ago

      Nobody was arguing against self defense

      • Որբունի@jlai.lu
        718·
        7 months ago

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

        • gregorumEnglish
          185·
          7 months ago

          Straw man

          A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

          Just asking questions

          Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: “🤔🤔🤔”[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

          The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

        • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
          3·
          7 months ago

          Jeez, it’s almost like there’s a difference between self defense using fists when attacked by fists versus gunning down an unarmed group of people. Yeah, if you are one person ganged up on by a bunch of people, maybe MAYBE self defense using a gun is justified (unless you started the fight, then that’s on you), but arguing that it was justified in this case is bloodthirsty and sick.