TWeaK

Your reply is very well written and on the whole I agree. The one thing I would say is that I am not simply dismissing the mainstream usage of the word, but pointing out its misuse as intentional deception given that the usage contradicts what the word describes. I aim to point out that the word is actively being used for propaganda, and encourage others to associate it as such.

If you prevent them from leaving at any point you invalidate the accusation of trespass.

They had no requirement to identify themselves to campus Public Safety Officers. PSO’s are not police. Locking them in the building is clearly unlawful detainment, and must invalidate any trespass charge as they were prevented from leaving (to be guilty of trespass you must first be notified and then remain in spite of being allowed to leave). Reasonable force is aboslutely an appropriate response to unlawful detainment.

They were told to leave or else they would be trespassing, yet they were prevented from leaving. If you are unlawfully being detained then reasonable force is appropriate to try and leave.

Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism.

Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it’s not terrorism if you only destroy property.

Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.

Burning down a Tesla dealership is thus not terrorism. It is violent, and it’s definitely political, but the target is not civilians but property. In a similar manner, the destruction of the NordStream pipeline was also not terrorism, by definition.

On the flipside, you can argue that some things politicians do are terrorism - if you remove someone’s disability benefits that could cause them tangible harm, and thus could be considered violence, in which case a politician attacking someone’s benefits would be committing terrorism against the benefit recipients. It’s also plain to see that invading a country, slaughtering a bunch of people, and bringing some back as hostages is terrorism; but so is raising entire cities and levelling buildings full of civilians.

Terrorism has many different flavours under its definition, yet so many people just have a vague idea of what terrorism is in their minds that doesn’t hold any rationality.

You can’t accuse someone of trespassing if you prevent them from leaving. No one is required to identify themselves to security.

Trespassing requires you to be notified that you shouldn’t be there. Without notice, there is no trespassing. After giving notice, trespassing only occurs if they remain on the property in spite of being notified they’re not allowed to be there. By preventing them from leaving, you are preventing them from satisfying your requirement for them not to be there, and thus undermining any trespassing charge.

Even if they were trespassing, none of that justifies being assaulted by police officers.

In terms of how a sane and civilized society would handle this, well for starters it wouldn’t even get to this point - a sane and civilized society does not support genocide. However their argument is that a sane and civilized society would view the requests as reasonable regardless, they’re not saying that such a society would give in to their demands because of the way they were protesting.

Maybe you could try making an intelligent comment yourself, before you criticise others?

Fun fact: trespassing isn’t even a crime everywhere, not on its own. Also, trespassing doesn’t occur automatically, in a nutshell you have to be notified and then remain on the property in spite of notice - this is why No Trespassing signs are a thing, they serve as notice.

Here, the students had every right to be there so were only trespassing after they were told to leave but remained. You’re absolutely right that they should expect to be arrested after this point. However, they should not expect nor do they deserve to be assaulted by police acting unlawfully (yet apparently shielded by the legal system).

Peaceful does not mean lawful. You can peacefully break the law.

The law is not always right - that is why it has the facility to be changed - and when laws are wrong it is a good citizen’s duty to break them, as that is the first step to changing them.

I just want to add something right here:

Retirement was pushed to the age of 64 under his name

Macron did this unilaterally by twisting an emergency constitutional power so that he could bypass a vote from the Assembly/Senate.

Nah it would have cost the city the same regardless, you’re just talking about how much the civils business pays its workers.

Most likely this would have been part of a larger project of installing cycle lanes in various places. But it still would have been expensive, civil contractors are notorious.

They’ve already instructed US cybersecurity agencies to stop reporting on Russian threats.

Not only that, the VOA literally has its own law requiring it to be impartial and protecting it from direct interference by the US government.

VOICE OF AMERICA BROADCASTS

Sec. 206. Title V of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 is amended by adding the following new section:

Sec. 503. The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts:

1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.

2. VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.

3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies. (Public Law 94-350)

• https://www.usagm.gov/who-we-are/mission/
• https://www.usagm.gov/who-we-are/oversight/legislation/voa-charter/
• https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/94/350.pdf

The point is they’re supposed to at least keep up the pretext of not being propaganda, and this is done by being critical when permitted. Trump doesn’t want them to be critical of him at all, which goes against their mandate from Congress.

Elon Musk managed to more or less keep up the appearance of being smart for a long while, up to when he called that diver a pedo.

You shouldn’t be downvoted, but this isn’t true. While partially funded by Congress, the VOA’s mission is not propaganda.

Since its creation in 1942, Voice of America has been committed to providing comprehensive coverage of the news and telling audiences the truth. Through World War II, the Cold War, the fight against global terrorism, and the struggle for freedom around the globe today, VOA exemplifies the principles of a free press.

VOA is part of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the government agency that oversees all non-military, U.S. international broadcasting. It is funded by the U.S. Congress.

Now, we can debate how much this is true in practice, and I’m sure the governmental structure of the organisation means the government can put their thumb on the scale somewhat, but the mission means they’re at least meant to keep the pretext of being independent and free.

But Trump doesn’t understand that. In his eyes, he’s paying for it (not Congress nor the American voters/taxpayers) and if he’s paying for it he gets to boss them around.

I voted in Florida and it was really creepy that all the electronic voting machines were managed by a Republican, but not Dems.

Ologies is one of my favourites. The host Alie Ward is always so enthusiastic, and the guests always seem to genuinely enjoy being on her show far more than others.

Yes but there needs to be some appetite from politicians, Dems seemed completely unwilling to entertain the idea it may have been rigged, perhaps out of fear they would be compared to Trump in 2020. All the noise about election rigging has been about people voting when they couldn’t or dead people voting and the like, no one is really talking about simply not counting votes. Meanwhile, we’re told that turnout for 2024 was relatively low, and yet the lines out of the polls that I saw were always heaving.

I also strongly believe that the last election was rigged, and am worried that no one really seems to be looking into it. Between Trump’s own claims that he would win no matter what and Elon “It’s just one line of code” Musk there is enough to be concerned with. Most likely, I think they simply didn’t count a bunch of Dem votes.