Palestine college student protest megathread

[Dan the Roman]

This whole debate is dishonest because liberals are hiding behind the content of these protests to refuse engaging with a fundamental question about the legitimacy of protests in general.

There is hypocrisy here, given that many of the posters supporting the Anti-Israel stuff called the truckers in Ottawa terrorists, with the defense they intended to intimidate.

The thing is by definition all protests no matter how "peaceful" are intended to intimidate in a democracy. Because if a group had the democratic influence necessary to get its way it would need to resort to them. Protests are an effort by a minority that has failed at democratic persuasion to make itself obnoxious enough to a majority that the majority gives in and surrenders its democratic preferences in order to live a peaceful life.

So protests sometimes may be for good causes because sometimes minorities are right and majorities are wrong. But they are ALWAYS anti-democratic, and any successful protest is by definition a violation of the rights of others, because that is the only way they can succeed.

Pro-Palestine protests are designed to override the rights that students/alumni/donors and others are guaranteed access to and have used to implement their preferences through intimidation, and therefore any protest, peaceful or violent within a legitimate political system is illegitimate. Now whether it should be suppressed by force is a different matter.  

But pretending that the Truckers or Jan 6th were somehow assaults on democracy and this stuff isn't is absurd. There are matters of degree and whether you agree with the cause, but by definition if democracy matters, force is always justified in preference to concessions to minorities that have gone outside the system to enforce their will on a majority.


It was justified against the Truckers. It was justified against protestors at abortion clinics who tried to block women from accessing them. It was justified against anti-vaxxers. And it is justified here. It would be justified if vegans tried to shut down campuses until dining halls banned meat.

[Dan the Roman]

This whole debate is dishonest because liberals are hiding behind the content of these protests to refuse engaging with a fundamental question about the legitimacy of protests in general.

There is hypocrisy here, given that many of the posters supporting the Anti-Israel stuff called the truckers in Ottawa terrorists, with the defense they intended to intimidate.

The thing is by definition all protests no matter how "peaceful" are intended to intimidate in a democracy. Because if a group had the democratic influence necessary to get its way it would need to resort to them. Protests are an effort by a minority that has failed at democratic persuasion to make itself obnoxious enough to a majority that the majority gives in and surrenders its democratic preferences in order to live a peaceful life.

So protests sometimes may be for good causes because sometimes minorities are right and majorities are wrong. But they are ALWAYS anti-democratic, and any successful protest is by definition a violation of the rights of others, because that is the only way they can succeed.

Pro-Palestine protests are designed to override the rights that students/alumni/donors and others are guaranteed access to and have used to implement their preferences through intimidation, and therefore any protest, peaceful or violent within a legitimate political system is illegitimate. Now whether it should be suppressed by force is a different matter.  

But pretending that the Truckers or Jan 6th were somehow assaults on democracy and this stuff isn't is absurd. There are matters of degree and whether you agree with the cause, but by definition if democracy matters, force is always justified in preference to concessions to minorities that have gone outside the system to enforce their will on a majority.

It was justified against the Truckers. It was justified against protestors at abortion clinics who tried to block women from accessing them. It was justified against anti-vaxxers. And it is justified here. It would be justified if vegans tried to shut down campuses until dining halls banned meat.

This is an interesting viewpoint because if the idea that any protest in a legitimate system is by definition illegitimate becomes widely accepted, especially by the authorities that would decide whether or not to use force, then any protest that actually does materialize under such a system automatically also becomes an attack on the legitimacy of the system itself.

Similarly, if it becomes accepted that any protest is by definition anti-democratic, then anyone who decides to protest over any issue, no matter how minor, is also forced to declare himself an enemy of democracy. If he is labeled an intimidator, then his relations with his fellow citizens immediately deteriorate. If he is considered to infringe on the rights of others, then he must declare his rights and those of others irreconcilable at odds.

Functionally, when the Founders enshrined the freedom of assembly and this so-called (for the sake of argument) right to protest, they were insulating the U.S. from all of this. It is quite ingenious. Despite the thousands of protests we have had over the years, virtually all except for Jan. 6 were targeted at specific issues and not the legitimacy of the government itself. The stakes of any protest are automatically minimized, and there is always an implicit compact between the protesters and the government that the latter will accept the act of protesting itself as legitimate and even an expression of democracy, while the former will make demands only for changes to occur within legal processes sanctioned by the government, even if there is virtually nil chance that they are successful.

Contrast this with authoritarian regimes, where any protest becomes an attack on the ruling ideology as soon as it is declared illegal, and is always tinged with the fear that a color revolution is starting.

"Republics are lucky. They can shoot people" - Former King Louis Phillippe of France

You are correct that challenges to the legitimacy of the government are rare but challenges to the legitimacy of other institutions are not. For instance, Columbia has an Israeli student body president. If protesters were to occupy buildings and prevent it from meeting unless the student government impeached her for being an Israeli citizen that is illegitimate not because the cause is antisemitic.  That makes it wrong. It is illegitimate because it is an effort to overturn an election a minority lost.

Workplaces, non profits,  schools, they have all been suffering from a form of hecklers veto protest which is not about a group being unheard but rather about people hearing them and deciding not to give them what they want.

There is a toxic strain that conflates a right to speak with a right to be heard, and a right to be heard with an obligation on listeners to agree, and that right isn't fulfilled until they are intimidated into giving in.

I don't think a right to protest exists beyond a symbolic right to present your case. If people say NO then it becomes an assault on whatever institution or community is taking place, and that institution has a right to self-defense that extends to the use of force.

[Dan the Roman]

This whole debate is dishonest because liberals are hiding behind the content of these protests to refuse engaging with a fundamental question about the legitimacy of protests in general.

There is hypocrisy here, given that many of the posters supporting the Anti-Israel stuff called the truckers in Ottawa terrorists, with the defense they intended to intimidate.

The thing is by definition all protests no matter how "peaceful" are intended to intimidate in a democracy. Because if a group had the democratic influence necessary to get its way it would need to resort to them. Protests are an effort by a minority that has failed at democratic persuasion to make itself obnoxious enough to a majority that the majority gives in and surrenders its democratic preferences in order to live a peaceful life.

So protests sometimes may be for good causes because sometimes minorities are right and majorities are wrong. But they are ALWAYS anti-democratic, and any successful protest is by definition a violation of the rights of others, because that is the only way they can succeed.

Pro-Palestine protests are designed to override the rights that students/alumni/donors and others are guaranteed access to and have used to implement their preferences through intimidation, and therefore any protest, peaceful or violent within a legitimate political system is illegitimate. Now whether it should be suppressed by force is a different matter.  

But pretending that the Truckers or Jan 6th were somehow assaults on democracy and this stuff isn't is absurd. There are matters of degree and whether you agree with the cause, but by definition if democracy matters, force is always justified in preference to concessions to minorities that have gone outside the system to enforce their will on a majority.


It was justified against the Truckers. It was justified against protestors at abortion clinics who tried to block women from accessing them. It was justified against anti-vaxxers. And it is justified here. It would be justified if vegans tried to shut down campuses until dining halls banned meat.

There is arguing in bad faith and then they’re acting like this and J6 are comparable events. Saying that an American version of Beer Hall Putsch is no different then some kids disrupting a college graduation is next level gaslighting

The following sentence says they are not the same and differ in degree. An American beer hall putsch is as I note absolutely worse because it's practical objectives and consequences are worse. But a Beer Hall Putsch by anyone is still a coup. And Hitler taking power legally was a disaster but legitimate.  The legitimacy did not make it good.

Just as embarrassing and hamfisted efforts to prevent Donald Trump to take office in 2016 by manipulating the electoral college were both different in motive than 2020, but ultimately aimed at the same thing.

Violence and the threat of violence are different. But any effective protest carries the threat of violence and aims to intimidate.  It's position is that whoever is doing it is entitled to get what they want because they are "right" and not because others agree. And because they are speaking on behalf of cosmic justice they are not bound by ordinary rules.

The goal of every one of these protests, and the  goal of a hypothetical protest to ban meat by vegans which occupied dining halls and disrupted school libraries until it got its way, are to strip others of their rights because one group has decided whatever they want is more important.

[Dan the Roman]

Columbia screwed up here from the start. The police should have been clearing out lawbreakers from the start with minimal force, removing them from campus and giving them desk appearance tickets. Nothing of note for disruptive tresspassers. With every delay, with every concession, they got bolder and were able to entrench themselves.

No sending in the police was dumb because a show of force that could not be sustained, and Shafik lacked the political capital to sustain it, was going to advertise weakness, not strength.

What she should have done is actually cancelled financial aid and/or prevented suspended students from taking exams, and thereby requiring them to repeat the term and pay for it.

[Dan the Roman]

Clashes between rival groups are a natural consequence of not upholding the rules against clearly partisan agitators. Protestors are not protesting the administration. They are protesting their classmates, and are only angry with the Administration insofar as it is perceived as favoring them. Pretending the same self-defense right doesn't apply to people who disagree with any protest, especially when violent or not, it intends to inflict harm upon them, is absurd.

This goes back to the post that got me dunked on. In a world in which policy is zero-sum, a minority engaged in the use of force, which a disruptive protest is, is directly engaged in aggression. Maybe the people they are targeting are in the wrong, and maybe they are in the right, but if you view the world not as right and wrong, but as different interests - which btw is a Marxist worldview - then those they are targeting are not only justified in resisting them, but obligated to do so.

[Dan the Roman]

The American people overwhelmingly support the police’s actions, including young people. Almost a majority support banning “pro-Palestinian” protests.
https://twitter.com/jimcmann/status/1786018438151844214?s=46&t=o2RmfeV6yYJk0...

That's not what the question asked, it said "to protect campuses from violence" which is a broad statement. And definitely NOT what police are doing at the moment.

Also pretty obvious that most people don't understand the 1st amendment - including lawmakers.

Ironically they do. Better than elites. The sentiment is for banning all disruptive protests on the issue which is viewpoint-neutral. There is a right to speech, not expression. And pluralities seem fine telling both Israelis and Pro-Palestinians to take their fight elsewhere.