It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harvard students protest soda fountains, claim dispensers are 'microaggression'

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

It's really quite absurd. For there to be aggression there has to be an intent behind the manufacturers to provoke them. From what little information there is available the manufacturer simply relocated. Leaving the West Bank to go somewhere in South Israel. Is that really aggression?

Now we have yet another term to add to the list. "Microaggression" What it means to me is this:

Hey hey look at me I've found a way to be mad at the world and I want to be noticed.




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


You're constantly using the word micro to associate this as a "small" issue...


Someone being offended by a vending machine is a small issue.


That's not what a micro-aggression is...
A micro-aggression is something that wasn't intended to cause an offence but does...
An example of this is a harmless (in intention) joke about a touchy subject, use your imagination.


Psychology is pseudoscience.


However, SodaStream is not a micro (small) issue...
It is tied into a harmful history against indigenous Palestinian Tribes who were forcefully evicted from their land to make way for a Corporation to build a Factory...


Forcefully removed by a corporation?

No.

A military?

Yes.


This has been explained numerous times, thus your whole input in this thread upto this post has been ignorant.
I dare say I doubt it will improve.


Getting rid of the soda machines will not stop Israel's government from abusing the Palestinians.

Boycotting Sodastream is not going to stop Israel's government from abusing Palestinians.

Boycotting Sodastream will accomplish making spoiled hipsters feel smug.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


A micro-aggression is something that wasn't intended to cause an offence but does...


Actually, if that's the definition, a better term would be pseudoagression.
edit on 3-1-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Your pseudo-intellect is helping you to form your pseudo-responses which in turn are pseudo-effective to this debate.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Your pseudo-intellect is helping you to form your pseudo-responses which in turn are pseudo-effective to this debate.


"Look at me avoiding what you said. I can't disagree with the fact that it's Israel's government that actually abuses the Palestinians--and that boycotting a company wouldn't stop the US from giving aid to Israel's military. So I'm going to attack your character now while I sip my Starbucks and try not to pass out because my hipster pants are too tight."



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

I bet Palistine has Israeli made soda machines.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
In fact
972mag.com...

they might make them.



www.foxnews.com...

HAIFA, Israel – Jews and Palestinians might think an Israeli company providing hundreds of jobs in Palestinian territory is a way to promote peace and prosperity, but some international groups think they know better. SodaStream, the company whose home-based soda-making machines have become an American sensation, is under pressure to close down a factory in the West Bank, where more than 500 Palestinians work, reportedly earning up to 10 times the area’s prevailing wage. The campaign has reached a fever pitch, after Hollywood star Scarlett Johansson ended her alliance with an international aid group miffed that she would endorse the company. But the boss of SodaStream said he's not going anywhere just because some global critics want him out.

edit on 093131p://bSaturday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Star for humour...


F for effort...

You've done nothing but avoid, so I thought it better to leave on a humerous note than continue debating with someone who is being completely myopic.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I was thinking, if Israel and Palestine wanted peace, would the world let them?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
So, if I read the story about SodaStream relocating correctly, now there will be 500 Palestinians out of work? How is that helping them?

Also, boycotting the soda machine might be akin to boycotting the pre-civil war ship building industry because of the treatment of slaves that were mistreated after being transported on their ships, isn't it?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't understand how 500 Palestinians would be out of work if it was relocated...

If it was closed down, sure...

But why would they lose their jobs if the company relocates?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Well, if there were any justice in the world, there would be sanctions on Israel much sterner than the ones currently being imposed on Russia. No Israeli firm would be able to do business with the civilized world, no Israeli bank or corporation would be able to borrow from international lenders and neither would the government of Israel.

Students tend to be a bit loud in their activism, which is right and proper. But in this case the cause is a good one.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Microaggression isn't a new concept, even if it is the first time you are hearing about it.

The concept is sound, and the idea is simple. If you are going to be doing business in a part of the world that is contested, to put it civilly, then your political allegiances are fodder for continued protests, especially when the government your business is aligned with are killing people so your company can remain in business.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't understand how 500 Palestinians would be out of work if it was relocated...

If it was closed down, sure...

But why would they lose their jobs if the company relocates?


I don't know the distances involved here, but if it is far enough, then it may not be feasible for the workers to make the commute (if fairly close). If like hundreds of miles away, relocation means closing that one and opening a new one. Therefore, they lose all their jobs. I've seen this many times in this country where it is more cost effective for the business to move to a new location, offer existing employees that want to stay to keep their jobs (but increase their commuting cost (with no matching increase in pay).

As I said, I do not know the distances involved. But relocate is a business term for shutdown here and open over there.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Ok thanks Krak, I assumed it would just open for business as usual but in a different location.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
So they did all this without permission from Harvard president Drew G Faust? Well, far be it from me to criticize their decision, or attempt to debate at the "Harvard level", and I'm sure that, deep down they felt they made a righteous choice, but they may one day come to realize that they've made themselves a "Faustian Bargain". And everyone knkws you don't make a Faustian bargain without involving Faust! Perhaps they felt that the school's contract with the Isreali company was a Faistian bargain, but maybe they are the ones who have made a deal with the devil himself...

Sorry, I wanted to find a way to make that sound clever...

If they do not wish to be a part of an institution that does business with Isreal, I can't really find much fault in that, but I can think of better reasons than because it might offend the Palestinians. Why don't they just say THEY are offended, because of the dead women and children and human rights violations etc? I guess they are too brainwashed to see one human family so they feel the only way to get their point across is to play the role of being the champions of the cause of another, seperate people.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: My_Reality
a reply to: Jamie1

It's really quite absurd. For there to be aggression there has to be an intent behind the manufacturers to provoke them. From what little information there is available the manufacturer simply relocated. Leaving the West Bank to go somewhere in South Israel. Is that really aggression?

Now we have yet another term to add to the list. "Microaggression" What it means to me is this:

Hey hey look at me I've found a way to be mad at the world and I want to be noticed.


Microaggression. I think that used to be called making a mountain out of a molehill or something like that.

Yes, this term really epitomizes how pathetic the culture has become. It's accepted to label somebody else as an aggressor simply because you were offended.

I think these kids are the type who will turn bitter with each passing year as they realize the real world doesn't really give a sh!t if they offend them or not.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk
Microaggression isn't a new concept, even if it is the first time you are hearing about it.

The concept is sound, and the idea is simple. If you are going to be doing business in a part of the world that is contested, to put it civilly, then your political allegiances are fodder for continued protests, especially when the government your business is aligned with are killing people so your company can remain in business.


Except the Harvard dining hall isn't contested territory.

If the Palestinian students at Harvard moved across to world to attend school in a country that's Israel's biggest ally then they have no reason to complain.

If they wanted to protest, then they should boycott by not attending Harvard.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470


If they do not wish to be a part of an institution that does business with Isreal, I can't really find much fault in that, but I can think of better reasons than because it might offend the Palestinians.


Yes, you nailed it.

If the soda machine is such a big deal to make an issue over, and Harvard doesn't remove it, then if they were truly concerned about protesting they would withdraw from Harvard.

But they won't. They're not THAT concerned. They're not going to do anything that might negatively impact their OWN lives.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

The soda company is not profiting from the occupation. It is making a profit because it makes a product of quality that is in demand. It is not a political entity. As I said before if you have a problem with Israeli policy, protest that. This kind of mickey mouse protest just damages the credibility of the protesters and weakens any contribution they might make to the real issues.







 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join