While I generally agree with that the thing I’m getting at is that we lose credibility when the argument we use is one that can be easily turned back onto us. “Freedom of speech only protects you from the government” is correct here. We also generally agree that hatespeech should be regulated by the government even within private settings, which makes sense.
I get why a stadium would not want to see that stuff and why they’re allowed to say what can be present on their property. What I don’t agree with is the fact that by denying the protestors in such a way they are trying to take a stance of neutrality in a situation where neutrality is just a technically ok way to say that Palestinians matter less than their football game or whatever this is.
I’m pissed at the fact that U.S. citizens need to protest like this to get any kind of traction while their government sells weapons to the aggressor in a very one-sided genocidal rampage. I’m pissed that the stadium is not only worried about money first, but that they believe that allowing support for Palestinians would hurt them more than it would help them.
TL;DR It’s insane that we would even need to consider making laws that would make moral decisions like this for us. I get hate-speech, that’s a fairly easy one to legislate, but to decide also what’s right and force people to support things starts to get weird and you know it would be misused in a flash. The world is not a good enough place for that kinda thing.
protests are useless and it’s pointless to try to be on a moral high ground against conservatives. conservatives don’t care about hypocrisy. they will point out your hypocrisy if it serves them in an argument and will ignore their own when it is turned back on them.
don’t waste your time trying to be an example of a good person. it will do nothing to change their mind. sweep the fucking leg instead. that was always the answer.
if you want to see change in this world, stop debating your enemy and start setting up booby traps for them.
While I generally agree with that the thing I’m getting at is that we lose credibility when the argument we use is one that can be easily turned back onto us. “Freedom of speech only protects you from the government” is correct here. We also generally agree that hatespeech should be regulated by the government even within private settings, which makes sense.
I get why a stadium would not want to see that stuff and why they’re allowed to say what can be present on their property. What I don’t agree with is the fact that by denying the protestors in such a way they are trying to take a stance of neutrality in a situation where neutrality is just a technically ok way to say that Palestinians matter less than their football game or whatever this is.
I’m pissed at the fact that U.S. citizens need to protest like this to get any kind of traction while their government sells weapons to the aggressor in a very one-sided genocidal rampage. I’m pissed that the stadium is not only worried about money first, but that they believe that allowing support for Palestinians would hurt them more than it would help them.
TL;DR It’s insane that we would even need to consider making laws that would make moral decisions like this for us. I get hate-speech, that’s a fairly easy one to legislate, but to decide also what’s right and force people to support things starts to get weird and you know it would be misused in a flash. The world is not a good enough place for that kinda thing.
protests are useless and it’s pointless to try to be on a moral high ground against conservatives. conservatives don’t care about hypocrisy. they will point out your hypocrisy if it serves them in an argument and will ignore their own when it is turned back on them.
don’t waste your time trying to be an example of a good person. it will do nothing to change their mind. sweep the fucking leg instead. that was always the answer.
if you want to see change in this world, stop debating your enemy and start setting up booby traps for them.