There was also a vastly different media landscape when Dr. King made his speeches. The level of surveillance now is so much higher that its trivial to find or create footage of violence if you want it.
There is no level of discipline where the media will portray it as anything but violence. I don’t think sanders is enterely wrong here, but I understand how in the year 2025 sander’s statement is a bit cringe inducing.
He probably was literally murdered by the surveillance state
What are your goals with this post?
Edit
Found more details about Bernie’s arrest here: https://medium.com/@ShaunKing/you-dont-really-know-who-bernie-sanders-was-in-the-1960s-79628016125f
I know it wasn’t the point of this post, but thanks for teaching me about this bit of history! This helped me understand why he emphasized discipline.
Have people understand that being a progressive does not mean blindly following Bernie Sanders.
Because past Bernie stood for what present Bernie admonishes.
I won’t pretend to know much about Bernie’s history, but I do have a couple of thoughts with which you may or may not agree.
- We should never blindly follow any politician.
- Politicians should be expected to change/evolve. It’s probably a good idea to consider the delta to understand each politician’s trajectory.
Out of curiosity, do you prefer past or present Bernie?
Past Bernie is the guy in the left image of the original Tweet. Who was attacked with the same slander as present Bernie is spewing.
Alright this got me curious, so I researched the matter further. I do believe you are wrong here.
From what I can gather, Bernie was arrested for being chained together with others to protest the installation of Willis Wagons. This was nonviolent. When the police arrested him, he kicked, screamed, and resisted the entire way.
Source: https://medium.com/@ShaunKing/you-dont-really-know-who-bernie-sanders-was-in-the-1960s-79628016125f
The protests Bernie was part of were accused of being violent regardless of how Bernie and the majority of people protesting behaved. That’s the point. Hell if he resisted arrest in anyways today they might try to charge him with assaulting a police officer.
I understand they were accused of being violent. The descriptions I read didn’t seem violent though, although they might be inaccurately biased.
I think protesters will always be accused of violence whenever possible. I just don’t understand how this makes Bernie’s statement inconsistent.
You need to read more news articles from the times then and not just modern accounts of the civil rights movement. The media definitely portrayed the demonstrations as violent and destructive even when most demonstrators were peaceful.
I just don’t understand how this makes Bernie’s statement inconsistent.
Bernie’s focus is the problem here. The anarchists and provocateurs who want to engage in property description don’t care what Bernie has to say. The vast majority of protestors who are peacefully demonstrating are not responsible for their actions. Even then there are many instances of peaceful demonstrators trying to intervene and stop property destruction and violence. “Peaceful protest” is a common chant at these events.
If you have familiarity with all of this, then you’ll recognize that Bernie is just being needlessly condescending to those who are already doing the best that they can. Nobody needs lessons on how or why peaceful protests can be effective. What we need is leaders who are focused on the obscene violence being perpetrated by law enforcement and the current administration.
If you want a better example of how to respond to the current situation you don’t have to look far. AOCs statement is much better.
It is 100% carrying water for the opposition to participate in this collective delusion that Dems for some reason need to answer for every teen who throws a rock rather than hold the Trump admin accountable for intentionally creating chaos and breaking the law to stoke violence. They are in charge.
tHeYrE GOiNg To LiE aNyWaY
So might as well just commit violence /s
No, Bernie Sanders was arrested for violently rioting. At least according to the newspapers Bernie Sanders reads these days.
You know what you could also try? Literally read the images Hasan posted.
If you’re not interested in civil discourse, then we can end this discussion now.
I researched his arrest to learn what wasn’t said in the images. Are you suggesting that resisting arrest is equivalent to violent rioting?
Look at the middle image.
Arguing with the soldier next to you is definitely how world wars are won.
It literally is how wars have been won. Strategy is not decided upon in a vacuum.
Compromising with the right on every viewpoint. Surely that is the way to go.
Right winger : “Lets have a debate on who is a person or not”
Centrists: “okay”
To sow general discord within the Anglophone left because:
- Sour grapes that their particular brand of socialism is unpopular.
- It’s a policy goal of the Russian state, and they’re algorithmically downstream of Russian info-warfare groups.
Though, not that it’s necessarily intentional.
Great to see liberals coming up with their own version the Judeo-Bolshervick conspiracy theory.
To be clear: Russians aren’t communist or behind everything. Russia’s a typical country with an imperialist administration, it engages in information warfare because it helps it win harder at imperialism (the highest form of capitalism).
I’m not even sure convinced they’re deliberately targeting MLs, honestly. It seems like the sort of thing that’d self organise inside the communication medium: The platforms they post on will recommend based on factors like your political leaning, material position, etc. So will the people in your social network.
Russians aren’t communist or behind everything.
Whether they’re communist or not isn’t the relevant part. And you can’t go claiming “oh but they’re not behind everything” when you invoke them as the secret puppet master behind all your political enemies".
Russia’s a typical country… it engages in information warfare
And yet you only ever invoke Russia as the shadowy puppet master behind your enemies, suggesting it is not typical
This isn’t at all the gotcha this person thinks it is.
Martin Luther King Jr. called for nonviolent resistance. The people resisted nonviolently, including Bernie Sanders. The media lied and called them violent, but MLK Jr. continued to call for nonviolent resistance in the face of that, and it worked.
Here, Bernie Sanders is doing the exact same thing. He’s not suggesting that the protestors are violent any more than Dr. King was, as satirized by the propaganda cartoon. He’s just doing the exact same thing - call for nonviolent resistance. No more, no less.
I know nuance is dead, but it is just insane to think this is a “gotcha.” This person is the one “leaning into the hysteria” by assuming a call for action by itself is actually a condemnation of the protests.
Didn’t MLK also work because the Black Panthers were lurking in the background? Either the establishment dealt with MLK or they dealt with the Panthers.
They actually dealt with both unfortunately
See if you can spot the difference between Bernie’s statement and MLK’s:
Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. … But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again.
I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to criticize Bernie for leaving that second part unsaid. Not to mention the point Hasan was making, which was picking this moment to talk about nonviolence - at a time when Trump is preemptively painting the protests as violent and insurrectionist - affirms Trump’s framing and justifies police escalation.
I’m with Hasan here, this was tone-deaf of Bernie, if not completely hypocritical.
Bonus MLK quote:
These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
MLK Jr.'s speech on riots being the voice of the unheard was powerful, and stabbed at the heart of a complex issue.
But a year before that speech, here’s what he had to say about the Watts riots:
“What did Watts accomplish but the death of thirty-four Negroes and injury to thousands more? What did it profit the Negro to burn down the stores and factories in which he sought employment? The way of riots is not a way of progress, but a blind ally of death and destruction which wrecks its havoc hardest against the rioters themselves” (King, 12 March 1966).
Uhhh, yes, he did say that… While addressing black americans living in the slums of Chicago, pleading with them not to “strike out with revenge against white people for the many wrongs perpetrated against you and yours”.
I don’t really think there’s any comparison between the Watts riots and the nature of the LA protests, not even close.
I don’t really think there’s any comparison between the Watts riots and the nature of the LA protests
See if you can spot the difference between Bernie’s statement and MLK’s:
Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. … But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard.
I didn’t compare them. You did.
MLK wasn’t discussing Watts in that quote, he was speaking very broadly about placing emphasis on the conditions that lead to riots instead of the riots themselves, and specifically on how much condemnation to place on them vs the conditions that lead to them.
In yours, he’s speaking directly to people who are living in a slum where violent retribution was a commonly understood feeling, and who had every reason to feel justified in lashing out in revenge. He specifically uses Watts as an example of an extreme expression of that revenge.
The LA protestors are not lashing out in revenge - I don’t think that quote, in the context in which it was given, applies to the protestors in LA. And I don’t think MLK’s thoughts on Watts in particular have any applicability to what’s happening in LA, but I do think it’s worthwhile for Sanders to take a lesson from MLK on where to place his condemnations.
Nuance was never alive.
No, Bernie is implying that the protesters are currently protesting violently.
He’s literally calling for discipline, not to stop protesting. A small minority of people were being violent. I think you’re looking for things to be upset about.
No he is implying that the protests are violent and amplifying a false narratieve.
I don’t read it that way
So why is he calling for non violence at non violent protests?
To remind people to not be violent when they protest.
And because the government is trying to provoke them into violence. It’s the hardest thing in the world to resist the urge to respond in kind.
Is he saying they are currently not violent?
I think because there are calls for violent resistance too and even if it is non violent now he is reminding people to keep their chill in the future when things can get more heated
Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines in California is not about protests. It is not about ICE. It is not about immigration. It’s about […] his effort to move this country toward Authoritarianism. […] Trump’s argument for deployment of the troops is absurd and laughable. Does anyone really believe that we are in the midst of a “foreign invasion” or a “rebellion” against the United States?
- Bernie Sanders
It’s amazing how much time some people spend worrying about the exact wording used by the small handful of influential people who seem to agree with them on an issue.
That statement could be written by any generic person with D in front of their name.
Then why isn’t it being written by generic Democrats?
It is.
From what I have read, it is a simple fact that a nonzero number of people in LA have been protesting violently (or call it rioting). It’s even possible, but certainly not proven, these are Proud Boy agitators.
His comment may be based on the possibility they were not. It’s still a bit demoralizing when you and your thousand-strong hold back from violence, and your leaders still rebuke you for one person’s action.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
would you rather a sitting US senator call for escalation and violence
Yes?
in the face of his boss and his boss’s boss doing the same thing but to a much worse degree… yes? americans should be defending themselves from federal agents by any means necessary.
like it or not if the world only had MLKs we would live in a society that practices blood sacrifice or some absurdist shit. you need your Malcom X’s at times like this because the unfortunate reality is that the only power that begets peace in the face of political violence is often more extreme political violence.
sitting and doing performative takes on how we need to remain “nonviolent” or “peaceful” in the face of literal armed government goons coming into our cities against our will is peak pussy shit and you guys are all shameful for going so hard on that take. have some self fucking respect. will you be clamoring for peaceful protest when they’re deporting your family to an unmarked government camp somewhere across the world? no? so why do you think it should be any different for the people it has already happened to?
I mean, yeah, he was there, being offensively non-violent. That’s the point he’s making. He knows how easy it is for the authorities to use any sort of physical (and sometimes even just verbal) aggression as an excuse to start to escalate things.
He’s not saying “don’t protest”. He’s giving tips on how to.
People please remember there are people actively posting Russian propaganda and trying to divide and break the US even further.
The first fight is against disinformation and propaganda.
Dude they don’t give a fuck what the truth is - they call it all violent regardless. He should speak out against their lies, not give credence to them. That’s the point. By saying that crap he’s implying that there is some major violence issue that needs to be addressed before people can be heard. It’s insane to hear this from Sanders.
There are always violent protestors, there is always property damage. It is never 0%. Stop letting the small fraction define the whole.
His recent tour makes this all even more insulting. He sounded like he was actually going to do something.
He’s not giving credence to them. He’s not implying anything, he’s not saying “these protestors are violent.”
He’s just saying we need nonviolent resistance. It’s a call to action, not a condemnation of it. The exact same things that Dr. King said, even while political cartoons like in OP slandered him.
Them not caring might mean you don’t care, but it doesn’t mean people don’t care.
There’s a reason they “make truth” whatever they want; because they need at least some semblance of justification for wider propaganda. Now which do you think will set off more people, watching cops maze and watercannon people sitting and singing kumbayaa, or using those same tactics on a violent group of people tearing up storefronts?
Which do you think will have a larger impact in motivating the general public? Which is easier to modify into whatever the fuck they want, even if there was justification for rioting? Which will play better for the State when ran in news highlights?
Hmm?
You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.
William Randolph *Hearsts, the lot of them
using those same tactics on a violent group of people tearing up storefronts?
Even if they don’t show watercannons being used on people actively breaking glass, they’ll show separate footage of the violent and unruly side-by-side in order to implicate the peaceful.
Liberals need to stop pretending as if ‘public perception’ is something protestors have any control over. Yea, by all means, make a point to call for ‘peaceful’ protests. But even when a protest is completely peaceful, corporatized media will find sometimes even completely unrelated footage from a different time with different people, and place it next to images of police violence.
Liberals should be placing every bit of emphasis on the reasons those protestors are demonstrating, not the way they are demonstrating. Conservative media will paint whatever picture they want no matter what, but democrats have to keep on message.
Stop concern trolling about optics.
There’s no need to be concerned about “optics” when you’re protesting non-violently. Or do you disagree?
You’re using very definite language with absolutes, as you could always just run b-roll from some 90’s riots as modern stuff. See, I can strawman as well, because obviously there’s going to be material better suited than any news material from the 90’s. However, you’re strawmanning too, pretending that modern news doesn’t have any standards of veracity. I know Fox gives little fucking respect to veracity, but there’s a certain point at which it goes just… absurd. And yeah, even then, some channels will keep doing it. I mean just look at NK television and Russian and Chinese propaganda. It’s utterly ridiculous.
But don’t pretend like that doesn’t matter. It’s much easier to influence people through news when the news actually has credibility, than when you’re knowingly watching shitty deepfakes. Or the news is claiming something about June protests while showing material from the winter or something equally ridiculous.
You need to stop pretending that the media, corporations and the state are some all powerful entities mind-controlling everyone, and you’re the only independent mind.
Liberals should be placing every bit of emphasis on the reasons those protestors are demonstrating, not the way they are demonstrating.
Followed immediately by:
Conservative media will paint whatever picture they want no matter what, but democrats have to keep on message.
But you don’t see that as a contradiction? You’re saying people should stop imagining they can influence anything, but also, they need to be emphasising the reasons for their protests, ie talking, ie communicating their fucking thoughts and needs because violence as a language is not one with a wide vocabulary, ie people need to be emphasising the reasons and not protesting badly. So… we need more discussion and more non-violent protesting, and less distracting violence? Wow. Is there an echo in here?
edit remember that “non-violent” doesn’t mean “dispassionate”
There’s no need to be concerned about “optics” when you’re protesting non-violently.
Begging the question.
It’s much easier to influence people through news when the news actually has credibility, than when you’re knowingly watching shitty deepfakes.
I’m not going to litigate this with you when your chosen example of misleading reporting is deepfakes. I can’t say anything that hasn’t been articulated far better than Noam Chomsky, so I’ll just leave this here. Go argue on behalf of your favorite media choice with him.
You need to stop pretending that the media, corporations and the state are some all powerful entities mind-controlling everyone, and you’re the only independent mind.
They’re not, and I don’t. But it’s an open secret that corporate media seek out examples and footage that evokes the greatest amount of emotion, and cities like LA are huge, with millions of people and dozens of protests happening at any given time. Where one protest, in one location, during one part of the day may be 100% peaceful, another across the city, with different people, at a different time may be violent and unruly. Even if they give both protests an equal amount of air time the next day, which one do you think will leave the larger impression? And which one will be used as justification for escalating police violence?
Nevermind that they absolutely have been known to shown footage from unrelated events before.
But you don’t see that as a contradiction?
Uhhh, no, because protestors aren’t the ones being asked to comment on the protests, political commentators are. Very rarely do protestors get to publicly defend their demonstrations and messaging, and even when they are, they don’t get to pick the footage or framing that gets communicated on network reporting. Protestors can’t control public perception
You’re saying people should stop imagining they can influence anything
Lmao, no, what I said was “Liberals need to stop pretending as if ‘public perception’ is something protestors have any control over.” Protestors don’t get to chose how other people characterize their demonstrations or their messaging, nor do they have any control over what other people do at large, city-wide and nationally covered protests. Acknowledging that idiots like you will accept any footage or example of unlawful activity as indicative of the character of the whole demonstration is like saying water is wet.
Especially when we all agree that Trump is a fascist who is actively dissolving democratic checks on his power, the level of urgency should - you would think - drown out any piddling examples of rambunctious demonstrators. If liberals were serious about their stated fears about the end of democracy as they said they were, they wouldn’t be spending so much time complaining about the optics of anti-fascist demonstrations.
I’m not going to litigate this with you when your chosen example of misleading reporting is deepfakes
I explicitly went from a less obvious example, to the most ridiculous one, deepfakes, while explicitly mentioning that’s what I’m doing.
I started reading Chomsky back when he was a linguist, so yeah, I don’t need some youtube shorts about his highlights, and if you can’t be arsed to make an argument, I’m sure as fuck not gonna bother to watch some rando’s videos.
They’re not, and I don’t.
50% correct
“Corporate media wants to twist the truth” isn’t exactly as easy to punch as a strawman, is it? Oh, sorry, I meant “the media can just make the truth whatever they want”.
That’s my point. Your rhetoric is full of naive absolutes and you don’t recognise your own strawmen, while trying to pretend you’re a master debater. (Pun intended.)
Here’s the thing. One of those things is legal, one isn’t. If you want to live in a democracy, with rules, you’d probably agree that the government should reflect the will of the people, and that there should be established rules.
If not, then go watch this
Uhhh, no, because protestors aren’t the ones being asked to comment on the protests, political commentators are.
And which one do you take me for?
“Protestors can’t control public perception”
Remember when I mentioned the “naive absolutes”?
This is one of them. You genuinely think there’s some hegemonic entity called “media” do you? ‘There’s no such thing as independent media in the US’, that’s literally what you’re arguing. Because if there is independent media, then yes, absolutely protestors CAN control public perception. The control is limited, yes, but to argue it’s non-existent is literally to argue there’s some hegemonic entity controlling it all. Which is kinda childish.
Especially when we all agree that Trump is a fascist who is actively dissolving democratic checks on his power
Again, a naive absolute. If you all actually agreed, then he wouldn’t be in power in the first place, ffs. You feel like everyone agreed, because everyone you interact with seems to agree.
I’m not complaining about any perceived optics, as I keep repeating. Rather, I’m actually reiterating Bernie’s point, and again, it is not to complain about any optics. It’s to instruct on the best approach to protesting.
You can tie up police resources without being violent or breaking the law. It will come at personal cost, but it the best way to approach this increasingly shitty situation. If you give in to the (justified) wrath and start acting like a fucking animal, then Trump gets what he wants; justification. If you don’t give it, he will probably try manufacturing it anyway, but why the fuck would you want to make his life easier by giving it to him?
And which one do you take me for?
Neither, you’re the one attributing protestors with the optics of their demonstration. I’m saying that even a perfectly peaceful protest can be implicated with a violent one down the street or later in the day.
If you all actually agreed, then he wouldn’t be in power in the first place, ffs. You feel like everyone agreed, because everyone you interact with seems to agree
A strange semantic injection to what was clearly a reference to ‘we’, the people protesting against him. Am I wrong in assuming you agree?
You can tie up police resources without being violent or breaking the law
Two things: -you can also not break the law and still be implicated in other people breaking the law -we have a “moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”
If you don’t give it, he will probably try manufacturing it anyway, but why the fuck would you want to make his life easier by giving it to him?
Because knowing you could be killed or deported to a prison in El Salvador and demonstrating against a fascist anyway sends a far more potent message than obediently staying out of the street or dispersing your demonstration when the police give the order for you to. I’m not advocating people throw shit at the police or light cars on fire, I’m saying that even those small acts of rebellion pale in comparison to a tyrant illegally deploying the US military on US soil against civilians. And complaining about minor vandalism when the US is slipping into an actual dictatorship is a little lopsided, if not entirely suspect. Would it be preferable for there not to be disorder? Certainly. Does the presence of disorder invalidate the urgency or cause for protest? Absolutely not. And expecting perfect order when the community that’s protesting has been under actual assault from ICE agents abducting their friends and family is twofaced.
The problem isn’t protestors being disorderly, the problem is the tyrant in power who is actively eroding what little democratic checks on his power are left. And now I’ll remind you that Trump has already granted himself immunity from constitutional limitations by making spurious claims of ‘invasion’ at no fault to any of these people who are now being forcibly removed and sent to known torture prisons. He will take whatever power he wants regardless of how much people kick and scream in response. The fact that you’d rather chastise those people fighting against it than amplify the opposition to the tyrant they’re responding to says all I need to know about you.
You are misrepresenting the situation here/reducing it to a far too simplistic binary.
Hmm?
This is so insufferably and needlessly patronizing that I’m not going to continue this discussion with you. I don’t know what gives you the impression that you can talk to people this way.
“Oh I didn’t realise you were going to challenge my bullshit. From now on, I’ll highroad this whole debate while not being able to address anything said in the previous comments.”
needlessly patronizing
A rather gross misuse of “needlessly”.
With more respect than you are due, I really could not give less of a shit. Have a good one. Feel free to have a last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you.
Aaaand there’s the highroading and ignoring of the actual arguments. Like always.
Zzzzzzz
Yeah, defeat fascism with a witty sign and a good chant! Law enforcement will NEVER escalate if you don’t!
This is the problem, right here:
You don’t know how the MLK Jr. protests actually operated.
Pick up a fucking book about it.
It was a very complex organized effort centered around litigation, and peaceful protesting protected all the people participating in it.
Civil disobedience is far more powerful than any violent resistance, because it plays against the fascists’ narrative. There will be a lot of causalities, a lot of pain and sadness, but the more people participate in peaceful protests, the more it raises awareness and grinds the machine to a halt.
There is no economy if the laborers don’t participate in it.
You have no idea how much I’ve read about the civil rights movement as a whole.
Fascists don’t need anyone to play into their narrative. They will create it by any means necessary knowing that even if it’s complete bullshit most will do fuck all about it.
In this country things will be way too far gone before you get enough people to participate to grind the economy to a halt. Some of y’all have way too much faith in your fellow American to do what’s right.
I doubt that, because you are falling for the fascist playbook.
A) They can make up whatever narrative, but they do need others to play into it because otherwise they just look insane and fascists are incredibly sensitive to mockery.
B) If you choose violent resistance, it will alienate your fellow Americans unless you can completely protect them from your actions (like Lūîgï).
C) It takes a really long time for a complacent nation to be convinced that it is worth joining a cause. You need a lot of charismatic and intelligent leaders to convince them, like Bernie, AOC, David, Jasmine, Frost, etc.
Read. A. Fucking. Book.
ReAd A fUcKiNg BoOk
If someone told me I needed to read a book about a subject in order to educate myself about the facts, I would ask:
“What books would you recommend?”
Because I actually like challenging my ideas.
Is your supposedly sarky comment supposed to imply peaceful protests are less effective than, idk, all out war, or whatever the fuck you’re proposing?
Non-violence and civil disobedience are where it’s at, and exactly what Sanders did in that image and what he is advocating now.
You’re not familiar with a guy called Gandhi, I take it.
Ghadi wouldn’t have done shit with out the violent movements going on at the same time.
Without Gandhi, without MLK, without Malcolm X, there wouldn’t have been any protests to turn violent. It’d be incredibly willfully ignorant to claim that protesting and civil disobedience don’t matter. So stupid, I might even make me suspicious of whether one can — in good faith — be that ignorant.
So go read a history book, you’re boring me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance
Whatever I say, you’re gonna just write a childish “nuh-uh” reply, so I don’t think there’s anything you can write that’s even of remote interest to me.
The audacity lol
Ah yes, the reply without anything to say.
Like I said, there’s nothing you could say that would be remotely interesting to me. Guess I was right.
I don’t care to entertain a dull mind.
There is no protest against the status-quo that the press (including “the liberal press”) can’t depict as violent. You have seen the female Australian reporter being targeted with a rubber bullet on camera only to have her own channel report it as her “being caught in the crossfire” right? Hasan was out there for two days documenting the incredible violent reaction of law enforcement to what has been almost completely non violent protests against the unlawful kidnappings of immigrants. He knows what he is talking about. If your concern is not the well being of the protesters but three fucking waymos or people waving Mexican flags, you are just self-reporting.
Rubber-coated bullet*
her own channel report it as her “being caught in the crossfire
They clearly state she was specifically targetted.
Just seconds after she wrapped up a live cross to Australia, one of the officers turned his gun towards Tomasi and fired at her from close range.
Bernie didn’t call anyone violent, anymore than Dr. King did when he called for nonviolent resistance. It’s a call to action, not a condemnation of it.
9News US Correspondent Lauren Tomasi ‘sore, but okay’ after being shot by rubber bullet in LA protests.
This is the title of the article you linked. She wasn’t shot by a rubber bullet. We saw that she was deliberately targeted and shot with a rubber bullet by a police officer while reporting on the protests, an action both illegal and against LAPD policy. It’s not a mistake or a coincidence the title is worded in a way to minimize this incident and the involvement of the police, it’s propaganda. And when Bernie implies these protests are violent, which they are not, he gives credibility to this propaganda when he should be unequivocally condemning police violence.
She wasn’t shot by a rubber bullet. We saw that she was deliberately targeted and shot with a rubber bullet by a police officer
Literally no sane person would ever imagine the headline means a random protestor fired a rubber bullet at her. Everyone knows it was a police officer. The article specifically describes it as a police officer targetting her in particular. Police officers are generally the only people armed with rubber bullets at protests. Of all the mountains of propaganda that are actively flying, this is very much a mole hill.
Bernie called for nonviolent resistance. He did not imply anyone was violent by doing so. Martin Luther King Jr. called for nonviolent resistance. He did not imply anyone was violent by doing so.
I think they’re point is that a better headline might be something like “Reporter targeted and shot with rubber bullet by police”. That more clearly calls out that it was intentional and not a stray, which most people are probably going to assume.
I understand you; the point is it’s not just grammatical pedantry. Passive language is deliberately used to reduce feelings of culpability. “The suspect died in custody” is less blame pointing than “Police denied suspect treatment for injuries, leading to his death in custody”.
Even if people understand that the police would be the ones with the rubber bullets, there’s an emotional response behind “Police shot at reporter” that you don’t get from “reporter was hit by bullet”.
I’m kind of amazed that we are two years into the Gaza genocide and you still do not know the difference between active and passive media voice.
Just seconds after she wrapped up a live cross to Australia, one of the officers turned his gun towards Tomasi and fired at her from close range.
“US authorities shooting an Australian journalist is simply shocking,” Hanson-Young said. “It is completely unacceptable and must be called out.”
A “rubber bullet” is a glaringly obvious clue to the perpetrator, and the article actively assigns blame and responsibility.
This is irrelevant. The brains of people only register what they see in the headline.
The perpetrator is the cop.
a glaringly obvious clue
There shouldn’t need to be “clues”
How is Bernie’s statement “leaning into the hysteria”
This comment section shows exactly why we should be wary of those who label themselves as progressive vs leftist or socialist/communist.
Y’all clearly aren’t trustworthy. Reformists who see themselves as reasoned revolutionaries. You still reflexively shove that boot in your mouth on command.
Seriously. At this point the majority of violence being carried out against protesters in order to protect ICE is being done by local law enforcement. State and city level democrats are not resisting Trump. They’re just mad that he doesn’t realize that they’re on the same team.
I don’t think Hasan actually read Bernie’s post.
I don’t think you understood Bernie’s post.
He’s telling people to keep the protests peaceful. He’s literally speaking from 1st hand experience about what works to achieve your goals.
How exactly does that play into Trump’s narrative?
Did you read Bernies full post?
Ummm, yeah. Showing it to me again, doesn’t change what it says.
Has he ever read anything longer than a tweet?
Yes.
We’re upvoting Hasan stuff? That’s what we’ve come to? Bernie didn’t even say anything wrong.
Step 1. Do not address the argument made by Hasan.
Step 2. Hurr Durrr Bernie good? Israel no genocide Netanyahu bad?! Israel has the right to defend itself!!
Removed by mod
How rich is he? Why does it matter?
Removed by mod
You have to be poor and struggle to talk about struggle of others? What kind of stupid argument is this Cosplay or not i don’t care he still documenting stuffs
Removed by mod
I’m not really a fan of his , there is better commentators but i don’t keep spreaking such bs like you do. I don’t think you are any smarter thsn his core audience
I’m so glad somebody agrees. That’s exactly what he is, and why I cannot respect him or his opinions. He is a self-proclaimed propagandist.
And you were called a right-wing troll. Is it hard to believe there are people on the left that don’t like Hasan? I guess you didn’t specify if you are or not, but I can at least speak certainly about myself. That other person said I should listen to what Hasan has to say, and it just really reminded me of what my mom would say about Rush Limbaugh. It’s the exact same thing, just a different flavor of bullshit.
Do you have anything to say or are you here to spout ad-hominems about people you do not have any knowledge of?
Removed by mod
Get out of here right wing troll
Removed by mod
The only mainstream progressive influencer to take a stand against Israel from the start when it was the least popular position. Must be doing everything for clout. Go back to r/Destiny dude.
Removed by mod
you think he’s the ONLY mainstream influencer to take a stand against Isreal.
Yes. When it was unpopular that is. Now that ‘one day everyone will have always been against this’ is approaching the actual grifters come crawling over.
You keep mentioning the word ‘grift’ I don’t think you understand what it means.
Palestine is the ultimate anti-grifter test and Hasan has passed it with flying colors by never endorsing the Democrats if they didn’t compromise to Palestine despite all the turbolibs screaming at him
Let them , they only make posts staying on thr top the longest way possible
-
I don’t respect him, or his takes.
-
Not a fan of Bernie, either. Definitely not a fan of Isreal. I’m trying to think of any political commentators or politicians or activists I don’t dislike, and all I have are AOC and Gretchen Whitmer. And I think Greta.
Bonus opinion, I don’t think there should be any violence from the protesters. Regardless of what the police or national guard do. Arrests, tear gas, rubber bullets, just take it. Don’t throw things, don’t loot, no masks, just take it. A protest is serious business, and I think you should be willing to accept any consequences from it if you really support the cause you’re fighting for, whether it is imprisonment, injury, or death. If you aren’t, don’t protest. Everybody remembers MLK being arrested. Everybody remembers Tank Man from Tiananmen Square. Everybody remembers Rosa Parks. Hopefully, everybody remembers Rachel Corrie. Their acts were so impactful because of the stark contrast between their peaceful non-violence and the response to them.
If there is any property damage done, let it be by the cops. Deep down, I believe most people are materialistic and somewhat selfish. If their car gets torched during a protest by protesters, they’re probably going to get pissed at the protesters! You want the support of the masses. Of businesses. If you’re a shop owner, and your windows get blown out by teargas and rubber bullets, you’re probably going to be way more pissed at the cops than the polite people just gathered in the street.
From the outside, to the centrists and the old people who still watch the news, a quiet (but huge) group of people getting pelted with tear gas and rubber bullets is so much more sympathetic than (hypothetically) some person in a mask chucking rocks at the police, waving a foreign flag. Again, sympathetic to people less left leaning. In my opinion.
Conversely, if someone thinks violence is the answer, I don’t think that’s a protest. That’s a fight. A revolution. And that energy should be directed, planned. Not just riot style destruction.
That’s all I’ve got, peace.
Cool story look up Black Panthers. MLKs peaceful marches accomplished nothing except building a movement. Change came from the riots.
Those type of people live in fantasy world
Well, I’m afraid we’ll just have to disagree and leave it at that. I guess I just wanted to express that I wasn’t just coming from a place of “hurr durr Bernie good.”
You should try listening to what Hasan has to say then.
-
Both people are right in a way here.
It’s the masses joining non-violent protests that gets shit done. They can’t ignore it when it gets big enough. Violence makes it that much harder to hold those safely.
The mainstream media and the right wing propaganda machine will amplify any small amount of violence to try to tarnish the whole movement.
The problem is that the protests are already extremely peaceful… Until the police show up and start blasting.
The media instead will take the 3 pictures of the Waymo on fire and plaster it on the front page everywhere to pretend the protests are extremely violent riots and give a pretense to send in the police which starts blasting.
Not to mention cop cars and other images from the past. Pure yellow journalism.
They’ll do that if there is trash on the ground and claim it’s looting. They’ll do that if anything catches on fire and call it a riot.
Dropping rocks, lime scooters, and molotovs on police cars parked under an overpass doesn’t need any sensationalism to amplify AND it gives the police a great reason to start blasting.
That was a photo from the Floyd protests.
Don’t tell anyone to remember their umbrella unless it’s absolutely pouring or you’ll give into the propaganda that water is falling from the sky.
The right-wing thinks we’re giving rioters a pass and, not that we need to satisfy their demands, don’t give them a pass. You can denounce setting fires and shooting reporters in the leg in one breath you know.
“Guys it is not raining today. But you should not forget to bring your umbrella if it rains.”
Totally normal statement.
They only do that when they speak about Israel. They start the statement with OCT 7 then end it with “all hostages should be released” and in the middle they water down whatever genocide and war crimes happening.
He could have done the same here. Could have said, the ICE violated people rights, and reforming the ICE should be the first step to peaceful solution.
Instead he basically ignoring everything leading to the riot and expect people to take it until, maybe, they can pass something in congress to be then reject by the house.
classic useless politician.
