701

‘NYT lies, Gaza dies’: Protesters deface New York Times building with red paint (reddthat.com)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Pro@reddthat.com to c/pics@lemmy.world

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source.

Exposing The New York Times: The Paper of Zionist Record

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] frostysauce@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Well then what the fuck should we use? Violence?

[-] thoon@feddit.nl 1 points 1 week ago

Your voices? Your money? Your attention?

Please consider those before you start going apeshit, thanks.

[-] tamal3@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

This isn't apeshit... Apeshit is wanton destruction. This is a calculated protest using red paint and thought-out messaging.

Also, why do we care about defacing a building when the same action has meaningfully called attention to complicit US media? NYC is cleanable; dead children in Gaza are non-recoverable.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 5 points 1 week ago

The pearl-clutching over some relatively minor vandalism in response to the mass murder of tens of thousands of civilians is really out of touch.

Since people seem so fucking concerned about property damage, maybe we need to start discussing the "vandalism" of all the homes and other buildings in Gaza. Actually, I'm not even sure I would be comfortable doing that ironically as it would feel very disrespectful to the human victims.

[-] amino 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

i think all the anti-vandalism advocates should personally pay reparations to Palestinians so they can rebuild everything the Israelis vandalized

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

We’ve been doing that for literally a generation now.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

My suggestion since early 2024 has been to birthstrike: no more births in the U.S. and other complicit western nations until the children of Gaza are safe and Israel has been held accountable for their heinous acts.

This is especially relevant because younger people are the ones who are: most angry about this, the most politically disenfranchised, most applicable to a birthstrike due to biology.

People shit on me and my 100% legal, non-violent / non-destructive recommendation. To the point where I've had posts and comments removed and even faced bans. So I've simply stopped recommending it.

[-] amino 1 points 6 days ago

that would easily devolve into eugenics. that's most likely why people weren't comfortable with it

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Eugenics is something that is imposed, not self-selected.

I don't generally see the "quiverfull" people, or governments all over the world encouraging their people to have more kids (including financial incentives), getting labeled as eugenics.

[-] amino 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

imposed vs self-selected is a false dichotomy. if you ask a random tradwife whether she chose her lifestyle she'll emphatically reply yes. had she not been raised in a patriarchal cult, most likely not.

you're not following the right people if you don't see it. creating a white ethno state by turning women into incubators is textbook eugenics. so is antinatalism because it promotes toxic individualism and blames societal problems on individual choices.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 6 days ago

so is antinatalism

Maybe so, but that's not what I'm talking about here. A labor strike isn't a call for people to become permanent NEETs. It has a set of conditions for an endpoint.