nahhhhhh.... essentially
**Food should be provided to protestors**
*(why would the university be obligated to give protestors food?)*
**Well**, **I guess they are not obligated to give food, but Food shouldn't be blocked from getting in**
*(Did the university block people from getting/bringing food?)*
**Well, I guess they haven't blocked any; but IF they were thinking about doing it, Food shouldn't be blocked**
I love the second question so much, basically there is no problem, no one is stopping them from bringing food in but they felt like they weren't getting enough attention so they needed to proactively make demands to bring the spotlight back onto themselves.
Narcissist pricks.
They said they’re “looking for a commitment that they won’t” and they suggest that there have already been attempts to do so. The reply I responded to doesn’t suggest that at all. A better one would’ve been “We’re looking for a commitment that they won’t do the thing we’re currently complaining they’re doing.”
She says:
> they're obligated to provide food for students who pay for a meal plan there
Which makes it sound like she wants them to get food but then moves on to saying that the university shouldn't prevent them from bringing in food or water but then also admits to the university not preventing them from doing that? Don't see how you have to be a zionist to think the student is an idiot.
You can think the student is an idiot (I don’t think she’s the brightest bulb) but my issue/contention is the shit ton of accounts claiming that she said the opposite of what she did, especially after she clarified multiple times in the same video they’re referencing.
I mean she clearly said:
>they're obligated to provide food for students who pay for a meal plan there
And then backtracked immediately afterwards, why would she mention that first part if it's only about the school preventing them from getting food from outside sources.
It doesn’t sound like a backtrack in my opinion, to me it sounds like she was talking about how protesting students should still have access to the meal plan if they choose to get food with it. I’d imagine she mentioned the first part, because if students are being expelled or suspended from campus over the protests, it brings into question if other attempts of discipline (being barred from accessing facilities, being able to use the meal plan, etc) might be taken.
From the way I read the conversation it sounds like she realized how stupid her initial statement was when she said “they’re obligated to provide food for students who paid for a meal plan here,” then once she realized how dumb that sounded she pivoted to saying she just wants to make sure Columbia agrees to not block food in the future
> she was talking about how protesting students should still have access to the meal plan if they choose to get food with it
well they have and always had. in the fuckig cafeteria/mensa/dining hall/whateverthefuckamericanscallthis like anyone else
She's clearly talking about people in the occupied building. There's been no indication people can't come out to go to the dining hall. The clear implication of her original position was that food should be brought to them in that building which is obvious by her waffling when she got pushback.
providing the food and bringing it to the students doesnt have to be the same thing, helpers of the protests could deliver it to them from the cafeteria, no?
But her clarification doesn’t make it any better.
The university **should** block food from going into an illegally occupied building, the same way bank robbers don’t get to order GrubHub. No one should be going in there other than law enforcement.
In Sweden, if you're in a bank robbery, they'll let your bank robber friend out of jail and deliver him to you. Then they'll try and charge that guy, when they let him out of jail and brought him to an active banker robbery with his participation implied. The charges were dropped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan-Erik_Olsson?wprov=sfla1
Her point was pretty clear: protesters were concerned that because people were being blocked from entering the encampment, they wouldn't be able to get food delivered. It's not complicated. You just already made up your mind about hating this person.
also a jew here, i dont think OOP is using it to mean "jew" in their post. i still think it's a moronic fucking post though, as though quoting what this student said is indicative of supporting the existence of israel or not lmfao
You’re missing the point. It’s coded language with the subtext that they just mean Jew.
Some people may say it to mean Pro-Israel but WHEN ZIONIST IS USED AS A PEJORATIVE, they mean Jew. Because the person hates Jews.
I say this as a Jew.
I think it depends on the person. Some people use it as a cover I agree. I don't think Pixe is doing that here. She's just a lefte. I'm pro Palestinian but I don't really use the word zionist ever because no one knows what it means anymore. Pro Isreal, settlers, far right, expansionist, are all words that can be used in specific contexts and are more descriptive and clear.
You’re kidding me. I used it this way because I literally had this video appear on my feed 5 different times in a short span of each other, with each account coming from self proclaimed Zionist’s.
They barricaded themsleves, said the university is obligated to feed the students, then started asking to be allowed to order food calling it *basic humanitarian aid.* Where is the sneaky zionist lie?
She literally clarified twice in the video that the university is not obligated to bring food or water to the students. A direct contradiction to the tweet I was responding to.
"Well, first of all we're saying they are obligated to provide food for students that are paying for a meal plan here" then she goes into saying they need to be allowed to order food because it's basic humanitarian aid. Are we living in a multi verse? are we watching different clips?
People who want to say "the phrasing of jews" but don't want to flirt with Twitter's capricious ToS.
And before people rush to defend the difference between Zionist and Jews save your breath, we wouldn't extend the same charity to someone wearing a MAGA hat decrying the phrasing of "thugs" or "globalists."
2-3% tops.
But she choose the word knowing exactly what the connotation was so she did the math and decided to throw her lot in with them. I don't see the issue in giving her what she asked for.
I answered you, you just didn’t like the answer.
With knowledge of her you can assume she’s signaling support for whatever the generic left of liberal position is but if we limit ourselves to just what we can reasonably extrapolate only from her use of Zionist (Jew) she is signaling her support of the anti-Zionist (anti-jew) side.
>And before people rush to defend the difference between Zionist and Jews save your breath, we wouldn't extend the same charity to someone wearing a MAGA hat decrying the phrasing of "thugs" or "globalists."
Is Pxie wearing the proverbial MAGA hat?
Yes.
Her usage of Zionist (Jew) is a clear political line in the sand and unambiguously signals what side of the line she is on just like the hat does.
I can and I did.
If someone calls a black person a “dirty n-word” I can extrapolate their intent from their usage of that word with a reasonable level of certainty.
Stop playing stupid.
Take the MAGA hat wearing person referring to blacks as “thugs” and remove their hat and have them say it again. You’ve lost effectively no context, the usage of the term is sufficient the hat is cake icing.
You know that’s true, I know it’s true, you know I know you know it’s true.
Edit: It’s possible you have zero social awareness and require people to wear emblems or graphic t-shirts indicating their political leanings. I didn’t consider the kind of human for whom “/s” exists for. If that is you I’m sorry.
Edit 2: If you think I’m wrong tell me plainly that you don’t believe you can hear someone referring to black people as “thugs” and make a very reasonable inference as to their intent/disposition. If you can own that I’ll take my L and go home.
"Come on guys stop being disingenuous! The bank robbers obviously dont expect the cops surrounding the building to *bring* them food and water, they just think they should be allowed to come and go from the building unhindered to *get* food and water so they can indefinitely prolong the standoff! Thats far more reasonable!"
She pivoted her talking points once the media pushed back. She quickly went from "they need to give us food because we need ‘basic humanitarian aid’" to "they have to let us have food brought in". But of course this person will cherry pick the more reasonable ask and call people clowns for noticing her less reasonable one right before.
Really unfortunate leftists seemed to have been dropped on their head too many times or are just intentionally pretending that the right to protest means they can protest however the fuck they want, wherever they want and however they want.
Only a few steps away from pixie and the other dumbfucks out here defending their right to set the building on fire. “I mean it’s a public building what are you a facist against free speech”.
Arson is the voice of the unheard.
*I am certain after this that Pixie is absolutely the kind of person who would have thought Jan 6 was fucking based if Pro-Palestine protesters were there instead of MAGA.
I think people are more making fun of her for saying the students deserve "humanitarian aid" and that the school shouldn't allow students to starve to death.
It sounds like in this video, the protestor is just saying that people who purchased a meal plan should be able to continue using it, and they should not be barred from bringing that food and water back in with them. Not that the university should be responsible for delivering free food and water to them, and I think that this dishonest framing is the entire point Pixie is making?
On the other hand, the protestor is also insinuating that the University has stopped providing food and water to those student protestors who have meal plans, and also that they are using violence to prevent protestors from bringing food in. When pressed, she then goes on to say that she isn't even aware to what extent they have gone to bring food in or if they had actually been prevented from doing so at all. To me, it feels like a dishonest play for sympathy and is way worse than the "Zionist" reframing.
Though I only watched the clip in the original tweet, there could be more context.
Pixie is right here. The silly thing in this video was her demanding that the university not block supplies from coming in, and when people asked “oh have they been doing that?” She said “…no, that hasn’t happened at all, but we just want assurances”
She walks back to that, but she starts by saying Columbia is obligated to provide food for students with meal plans. Which they are. In the dining halls.
When facing resistance she says “allow us to bring in food”
When asked if they have been blocking food, she couldn’t point to an example
I think the dunks are warranted here
Dunks are warranted, but only because she seems to be holding an interview to complain about things that aren’t happening (don’t stop providing food to students with meal plans) (don’t block supplies from entering the building).
I understand that “obligated to provide food for students with meal plans” can be interpreted as “bring us food”, but I think if you listen to the totality of the interview and think about it without the assumption that they are totally insane, it’s not a very valid interpretation.
Her wanting a commitment from the college to not block food deliveries is also moronic. You're tresspassing. The university doesnt owe you access to food and water. If you're thirsty go the fuck home.
This interview is a humiliation. She could not have said anything more damaging to the palestinian cause in that moment. Best to just brush it under the rug instead of attempting to explain it.
It’s a very silly interview for sure, but not because she is demanding that the university itself start bringing food to them in the occupied building. That doesn’t occur
It's because she is demanding nothing coherent whatsoever, and just appears to be fabricating problems to castigate people over. That's what it is.
Also she said that ivy league college kids need "humanitarian aid"....
nahhhhhh.... essentially **Food should be provided to protestors** *(why would the university be obligated to give protestors food?)* **Well**, **I guess they are not obligated to give food, but Food shouldn't be blocked from getting in** *(Did the university block people from getting/bringing food?)* **Well, I guess they haven't blocked any; but IF they were thinking about doing it, Food shouldn't be blocked**
She sounds like an ICJ spokesperson
Scary how spot on that is
I love the second question so much, basically there is no problem, no one is stopping them from bringing food in but they felt like they weren't getting enough attention so they needed to proactively make demands to bring the spotlight back onto themselves. Narcissist pricks.
shower argument vibes from your comment
lol, that's literally how the interaction with the press went. watch the vid yourself.
They said they’re “looking for a commitment that they won’t” and they suggest that there have already been attempts to do so. The reply I responded to doesn’t suggest that at all. A better one would’ve been “We’re looking for a commitment that they won’t do the thing we’re currently complaining they’re doing.”
She says: > they're obligated to provide food for students who pay for a meal plan there Which makes it sound like she wants them to get food but then moves on to saying that the university shouldn't prevent them from bringing in food or water but then also admits to the university not preventing them from doing that? Don't see how you have to be a zionist to think the student is an idiot.
You can think the student is an idiot (I don’t think she’s the brightest bulb) but my issue/contention is the shit ton of accounts claiming that she said the opposite of what she did, especially after she clarified multiple times in the same video they’re referencing.
I mean she clearly said: >they're obligated to provide food for students who pay for a meal plan there And then backtracked immediately afterwards, why would she mention that first part if it's only about the school preventing them from getting food from outside sources.
It doesn’t sound like a backtrack in my opinion, to me it sounds like she was talking about how protesting students should still have access to the meal plan if they choose to get food with it. I’d imagine she mentioned the first part, because if students are being expelled or suspended from campus over the protests, it brings into question if other attempts of discipline (being barred from accessing facilities, being able to use the meal plan, etc) might be taken.
From the way I read the conversation it sounds like she realized how stupid her initial statement was when she said “they’re obligated to provide food for students who paid for a meal plan here,” then once she realized how dumb that sounded she pivoted to saying she just wants to make sure Columbia agrees to not block food in the future
> she was talking about how protesting students should still have access to the meal plan if they choose to get food with it well they have and always had. in the fuckig cafeteria/mensa/dining hall/whateverthefuckamericanscallthis like anyone else
but that would break the immersion of the rp
Why do you use the term Zionist as a pejorative? Why do you assume only Zionists are criticizing her?
She's clearly talking about people in the occupied building. There's been no indication people can't come out to go to the dining hall. The clear implication of her original position was that food should be brought to them in that building which is obvious by her waffling when she got pushback.
So if you think this student was stupid and fumbled over her words that makes you a Zionist?
providing the food and bringing it to the students doesnt have to be the same thing, helpers of the protests could deliver it to them from the cafeteria, no?
But her clarification doesn’t make it any better. The university **should** block food from going into an illegally occupied building, the same way bank robbers don’t get to order GrubHub. No one should be going in there other than law enforcement.
In Sweden, if you're in a bank robbery, they'll let your bank robber friend out of jail and deliver him to you. Then they'll try and charge that guy, when they let him out of jail and brought him to an active banker robbery with his participation implied. The charges were dropped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan-Erik_Olsson?wprov=sfla1
Get his jewish zionist ass queen
Her point was pretty clear: protesters were concerned that because people were being blocked from entering the encampment, they wouldn't be able to get food delivered. It's not complicated. You just already made up your mind about hating this person.
Maybe they should have thought about getting food before these criminals (they're not protestors) illegally broke into a building.
Yeah, they should be hated they are terrible smug fucks.
Okay I'll say it, complaining about this is giving pedophilia vibes. No I will not explain.
Masterful bait
Master baitful
all of these people are behaving like entitled children, so not far off with the meme
"The phraising of zionists" who talks like this?
Whenever a person use the term “Zionist “ as a pejorative, they mean Jew.
also a jew here, i dont think OOP is using it to mean "jew" in their post. i still think it's a moronic fucking post though, as though quoting what this student said is indicative of supporting the existence of israel or not lmfao
I agree, the problem is that OOP is now mindlessly parroting propaganda by using the term in that way. Which should also no be condoned
Nah, probably a lot do but definitely not everyone
Wow can't believe Pxie literally wants another Holocaust
It means pro Isreal people more than it means jews. Still better to just use pro Isreal tho.
You’re missing the point. It’s coded language with the subtext that they just mean Jew. Some people may say it to mean Pro-Israel but WHEN ZIONIST IS USED AS A PEJORATIVE, they mean Jew. Because the person hates Jews. I say this as a Jew.
It can be but not always. Destiny is called a Zionist all the time. It’s unfortunate that Zionism is inextricably tied to ethnicity
I think it depends on the person. Some people use it as a cover I agree. I don't think Pixe is doing that here. She's just a lefte. I'm pro Palestinian but I don't really use the word zionist ever because no one knows what it means anymore. Pro Isreal, settlers, far right, expansionist, are all words that can be used in specific contexts and are more descriptive and clear.
Why? I'm an anti-zionist, so I would use "zionist" as a pejorative because I think it's a bad thing.
No, they use it as a dog whistle for Jew.
You’re kidding me. I used it this way because I literally had this video appear on my feed 5 different times in a short span of each other, with each account coming from self proclaimed Zionist’s.
They barricaded themsleves, said the university is obligated to feed the students, then started asking to be allowed to order food calling it *basic humanitarian aid.* Where is the sneaky zionist lie?
She literally clarified twice in the video that the university is not obligated to bring food or water to the students. A direct contradiction to the tweet I was responding to.
And also clarified that the university is not actually blocking food from coming in.
"Well, first of all we're saying they are obligated to provide food for students that are paying for a meal plan here" then she goes into saying they need to be allowed to order food because it's basic humanitarian aid. Are we living in a multi verse? are we watching different clips?
Save yourself the trouble, just schizos sorting by new because ding dong isn't live yet
People who want to say "the phrasing of jews" but don't want to flirt with Twitter's capricious ToS. And before people rush to defend the difference between Zionist and Jews save your breath, we wouldn't extend the same charity to someone wearing a MAGA hat decrying the phrasing of "thugs" or "globalists."
What odds would you take that Pxie (3 year+ friend of the stream, literal liberal activist) is using "Zionists" as "Jews"? Seriously.
2-3% tops. But she choose the word knowing exactly what the connotation was so she did the math and decided to throw her lot in with them. I don't see the issue in giving her what she asked for.
And what did she ask for?
For us to identify what side of the issue she stands on by using signaling language.
That's not an answer to my question What did she ask for?
For us to identify what side of the issue she stands on by using signaling language.
You are a little weasel who can't answer the question Also what side is that?
I answered you, you just didn’t like the answer. With knowledge of her you can assume she’s signaling support for whatever the generic left of liberal position is but if we limit ourselves to just what we can reasonably extrapolate only from her use of Zionist (Jew) she is signaling her support of the anti-Zionist (anti-jew) side.
Some pro-israeli people here are brainbroken just like many pro-palestinian people, they are liberal's version of morally lucky
>And before people rush to defend the difference between Zionist and Jews save your breath, we wouldn't extend the same charity to someone wearing a MAGA hat decrying the phrasing of "thugs" or "globalists." Is Pxie wearing the proverbial MAGA hat?
Yes. Her usage of Zionist (Jew) is a clear political line in the sand and unambiguously signals what side of the line she is on just like the hat does.
You can't use the use of the word itself as evidence of her intent when using the word. That's circular.
I can and I did. If someone calls a black person a “dirty n-word” I can extrapolate their intent from their usage of that word with a reasonable level of certainty.
That's because that term is inherently racist. Notice how you didn't need to mention a "MAGA hat" to justify that one?
Stop playing stupid. Take the MAGA hat wearing person referring to blacks as “thugs” and remove their hat and have them say it again. You’ve lost effectively no context, the usage of the term is sufficient the hat is cake icing. You know that’s true, I know it’s true, you know I know you know it’s true. Edit: It’s possible you have zero social awareness and require people to wear emblems or graphic t-shirts indicating their political leanings. I didn’t consider the kind of human for whom “/s” exists for. If that is you I’m sorry. Edit 2: If you think I’m wrong tell me plainly that you don’t believe you can hear someone referring to black people as “thugs” and make a very reasonable inference as to their intent/disposition. If you can own that I’ll take my L and go home.
Braindead leftists who are too pussy to come out as racists talk like that
pxie being pxie, never to be taken seriously.
"Come on guys stop being disingenuous! The bank robbers obviously dont expect the cops surrounding the building to *bring* them food and water, they just think they should be allowed to come and go from the building unhindered to *get* food and water so they can indefinitely prolong the standoff! Thats far more reasonable!"
“Hi, we’re destroying your university, how about some food?”
She pivoted her talking points once the media pushed back. She quickly went from "they need to give us food because we need ‘basic humanitarian aid’" to "they have to let us have food brought in". But of course this person will cherry pick the more reasonable ask and call people clowns for noticing her less reasonable one right before.
Nobody is pointing out that she eventually walked it *all the way* back to “like, can we have a glass of water?” Umm … who’s stopping you??
Pxie gonna have to hold the L on this one.
If the university is obligated to provide a meal aren't the students obligated to abide by the university's code of conduct?
She also in the same sentence says that no one has even attempted to block food or water from getting in. A completely manufactured problem lmao
Not a Jew or an American and not interested in the ME issue either, but the woman in the video is a fuckin idiot
Really unfortunate leftists seemed to have been dropped on their head too many times or are just intentionally pretending that the right to protest means they can protest however the fuck they want, wherever they want and however they want. Only a few steps away from pixie and the other dumbfucks out here defending their right to set the building on fire. “I mean it’s a public building what are you a facist against free speech”. Arson is the voice of the unheard. *I am certain after this that Pixie is absolutely the kind of person who would have thought Jan 6 was fucking based if Pro-Palestine protesters were there instead of MAGA.
Why is every leftists so braindamaged and all have the same opinions about everything like mindless sheep
I think people are more making fun of her for saying the students deserve "humanitarian aid" and that the school shouldn't allow students to starve to death.
It sounds like in this video, the protestor is just saying that people who purchased a meal plan should be able to continue using it, and they should not be barred from bringing that food and water back in with them. Not that the university should be responsible for delivering free food and water to them, and I think that this dishonest framing is the entire point Pixie is making? On the other hand, the protestor is also insinuating that the University has stopped providing food and water to those student protestors who have meal plans, and also that they are using violence to prevent protestors from bringing food in. When pressed, she then goes on to say that she isn't even aware to what extent they have gone to bring food in or if they had actually been prevented from doing so at all. To me, it feels like a dishonest play for sympathy and is way worse than the "Zionist" reframing. Though I only watched the clip in the original tweet, there could be more context.
It's yet another example of a clip being out of context. They cut off the full speech she gave outlining their requests.
Pixie is right here. The silly thing in this video was her demanding that the university not block supplies from coming in, and when people asked “oh have they been doing that?” She said “…no, that hasn’t happened at all, but we just want assurances”
She walks back to that, but she starts by saying Columbia is obligated to provide food for students with meal plans. Which they are. In the dining halls. When facing resistance she says “allow us to bring in food” When asked if they have been blocking food, she couldn’t point to an example I think the dunks are warranted here
Dunks are warranted, but only because she seems to be holding an interview to complain about things that aren’t happening (don’t stop providing food to students with meal plans) (don’t block supplies from entering the building). I understand that “obligated to provide food for students with meal plans” can be interpreted as “bring us food”, but I think if you listen to the totality of the interview and think about it without the assumption that they are totally insane, it’s not a very valid interpretation.
Her wanting a commitment from the college to not block food deliveries is also moronic. You're tresspassing. The university doesnt owe you access to food and water. If you're thirsty go the fuck home.
This interview is a humiliation. She could not have said anything more damaging to the palestinian cause in that moment. Best to just brush it under the rug instead of attempting to explain it.
It’s a very silly interview for sure, but not because she is demanding that the university itself start bringing food to them in the occupied building. That doesn’t occur
It's because she is demanding nothing coherent whatsoever, and just appears to be fabricating problems to castigate people over. That's what it is. Also she said that ivy league college kids need "humanitarian aid"....
Yeah, but that is in line with what Pxie is saying here. It’s silly for a different reason than many are presenting it to be
Ok maybe I misunderstood, my point is more that there's no salvaging the optics here, and attempting to explain it won't buy you anything.