411
Protesters blockade Palantir offices over tech firm’s ‘totalitarian’ work with ICE
(www.independent.co.uk)
As someone watching this from outside: More of this please.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
411 points (99.3% liked)
Privacy
1875 readers
38 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 49 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
This is just a test. Software that can track and surveil immigrats can also track and surveil people fighting against fascism.
Now do demolition.
I think that you might not get to claim the mantle of peaceful protest when you start blowing things up yourself.
Someone missed the news?
Cops have been blowing people’s home for decades.
And it’s US constitutionally agreed upon.
Unless you forgot what the theatrics of protest are for, I'm not so sure what's your point here.
This article is about protests that were (arguably) largely peaceful, and I presume that was intentional on the part of the organizers. I doubt that they would be interested in dropping the mantle of peaceful protest in order to gain license to start blowing up buildings. I could be wrong about that, though. Certainly no one here seems to be interested in peaceful protest.
When peaceful negotiations breakdown between capitalists killing people overseas, to bombing homes of people peacefully protesting your violence, there’s only one language that communicates genociders to cease. And it's not another protest.
fyi demolition doesn't require explosives to eradicate invasive tools of the bourgeoisie. Read up history on how to get rid of intolerant elites.
So the ultimate point was to criticize these people for merely engaging in another protest rather than doing something effective?
This reply reads as if you are not aware the point of protest.
The protest here have proven their point: the fascist state of the US defends invasive corporations like Palantir Technologies Inc. to bomb civilians domestically and abroad.
Do you want genocide in the US?
So you are arguing that the optimal strategy is to do one protest to make your point about the state, and then start unleashing violence?
Ok. Thank you for admitting you don't comprehend the point of protests.
Until you learn how dictators have been stripped from their violence historically, I have no further use to engage your bad faith view of demolition.
☮✌️
Ok. Thank you for admitting you don’t comprehend the point of protests.
You just linked to a play in order to make your point. That is pretty consistent with you living in a world of fantasy, I must say.
Until you learn how dictators have been stripped from their violence historically, I have no further use to engage your bad faith view of demolition.
If you think that demolishing a building is the best course of action at this time then so be it, but don't act like I am the one with a bad faith view because you insist on calling it a peaceful act, and I am merely pointing it out.
Demolition of facist tools of invasion of privacy is literally what this community is about. “Abolition” if you require a synonym.
Thank you for not removing your beam from the ICE course of violence.
Demolition of facist tools of invasion of privacy is literally what this community is about. “Abolition” if you require a synonym.
I do not think that it is within the power of these particular protestors to "abolish" anything, so saying they should do that next seems a bit silly.
Thank you for not removing your beam from the ICE course of violence.
Where did I ever say that their course of violence was not bad? That is a projection on your part. You are arguing with an invented fantasy version of me rather than the person that actually exists.
But hey, let me help you out a bit. If you think that violence is necessary, then I would actually strongly recommend reading the Bhagavad Gita because it has you covered, as it is basically all about a god (Lord Krishna) trying to convince a man (Arjuna) not to abandon a battle on both the physical and spiritual plain. Lots of verses are relevant, but to limit myself to a few (2:31-33):
Considering your dharma, you should not vacillate. For a warrior, nothing is higher than a war against evil. The warrior confronted with such a war should be pleased, Arjuna, for it comes as an open gate to heaven. But if you do not participate in this battle against evil, you will incur sin, violating your dharma and your honor.
Make sure the building’s empty and you’re fine.
I don't think that if I blew up your home while you and your loved ones were out that you would consider this to be a peaceful act merely because no one you cared about was physically harmed.
Corporations aren’t people, my esteemed internet peer.
“But people’s livelihoods!” - Sure, but a not-evil company will cover that, right? Especially a multi-million dollar one. Rebuild or relocate.
Those who are resentful cogs forced to labor under them for a paycheck are not the issue.
My hypothetical is singular property damage for a multi-million dollar corp that amounts to pocket change for those who own it and are making sweeping policy changes that infringe on people’s rights in an unprecedented way. This is not a mom-and-pop or singular franchisee targeted for immutable traits.
The analogue to your suggestion would be doxxing those billionaires and blowing up their homes. That’s different.
So property destruction is inherently peaceful as long as the property did not belong to a human being?
Who's arguing for peaceful protest here? And why is the binary of "peaceful/not peaceful" important to you? Are you trying to make the point that protests aren't valid or effective unless they're "peaceful?"
Who’s arguing for peaceful protest here?
Apparently no one here, though I think (possibly incorrectly) that the protestors in the article were intending to be peaceful.
And why is the binary of “peaceful/not peaceful” important to you?
I would ask why it seems to be so important to everyone else, given that there was so much resistance to the idea that blowing up buildings is not "peaceful".
Are you trying to make the point that protests aren’t valid or effective unless they’re “peaceful?”
It depends on what the goal of a given protest is.
For example, this protest had the goal of interfering with a developer conference in order to disrupt the recruitment of new talent, and it would seem that they were very effective in this because there was evidence that the event was shut down. However, in the long run I am not sure how much this will help because I suspect that the event will just be rescheduled, and I suspect that the people attending the event probably felt intimidated as a result of all the people banging on the windows rather than guilty for attending the event. (Just to be clear, I am not saying that therefore this was wasted time on their part; I am just saying that celebrating might be premature.)
Regardless, if nothing else, the protest succeeded very well in being very visible and unignorable, and I think that there is a lot of value in that. Certainly I would rather that they do this kind of thing than that they be casually blowing up buildings as many here would prefer.
Hmmmm. You smell like a troll trying to muddy the waters by arguing over minutia. You're writing a lot about something only tangentially related to the topic.
I can understand that, but keep in mind that, from my perspective, my original comment,
I think that you might not get to claim the mantle of peaceful protest when you start blowing things up yourself.
was intended to be perfectly innocuous (if a bit wry). After all, the article was about a largely peaceful protest, and introducing demolition into the mix seems like it would be going against the spirit of that.
Regarding, "only tangentially related to the topic", I think that you will note that the paragraph I wrote just now analyzing the effect of the protest on the developer conference and the likely effect it had on recruitment in the long term is more than anyone else in this post has said about what actually happened in this particular protest, rather than various fantasies of Palantir's destruction. I actually would have loved to have more interesting discussion along those lines (because my analysis is not the only valid one!), but there is not much evidence that anyone else here read more than just the title...
Nothing Palantir does has peace in mind. And they for damn sure aren't someone's home. Get a grip.
So, just to be clear, you are claiming that blowing up Palantir would be an inherently peaceful act?
What a dumbass take, are you trying to be obtuse? Who would make an argument that exploding anything is peaceful?
I'm saying "peace" is not the ultimate moral value you seem to think it is. Fuck being peaceful towards those who want the very worst for us. There's no moral high ground in peacefully letting fascists do fascism, actually the morality of the situation points in the exact opposite direction. I'm guessing you don't actually know very much about Palantir.
Who would make an argument that exploding anything is peaceful?
You, by posting a comment disagreeing with my original comment pointing out demolition crosses the line into not being peaceful.
For your own sake, I strongly recommend forgetting about this thread
I genuinely appreciate your concern, but you do not have to worry about me. 😀
Actually I criticized your comparison to blowing up the place a family lives, and I also said your argument is unserious, and I also implied that the way that company behaves and its intentions change the calculations, fundamentally, about the value of peace. But of course you're not engaging with any of that, just making bad faith takes that deliberately miss the point.
Later dork.
I mean, if you are not going to engage with the things I actually said, then there is only so much I can in response. 😃
Enjoy your "later dork" Parthian shot.
Look, people here seem to think that I am crying over what happens to Palantir. I'm not. What concerns me is that people genuinely seem to believe that destruction of buildings is perfectly compatible with the word "peace".
If you are going to advocate for a non-peaceful act, then don't shy away from what you are doing. Claiming that what you are doing is peaceful even though it involves blowing up things seems to me like inherently lying to yourself to make yourself feel better. It is much better to acknowledge that blowing up the building is a non-peaceful act and then examine it critically in order to determine whether it is really worth it, then to dismiss it as being peaceful which makes it seem like it is not a big deal.
I know that I am probably wasting my time, it's just that so much of the hell we are going through in the U.S. is the result of people believing in stories that they tell themselves about what they are doing in order to make themselves feel better, rather than evaluating things critically, and I really wish there were less of this mentality in the world...
What is your favorite flavor of boot-leather?
RingSun, specifically the Black Coffee flavor.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way: if you think that blowing up fascist things is the right thing to do in a particular situation, then why do you care so much about whether it is a peaceful act or not?
I think that sitting in a peace circle while your friends get carted off to death camps is always the wrong thing to do.
Agreed, but if you had the option of hiding your friends, then that would probably be better than shooting at the people trying to take them away for the simple reason then you would probably get outshot, and if not then more would likely follow. If you don't have that option, though, then by all means start shooting if that is the only way to save their lives.
Applied to this situation: it would probably be better for this group to protest peacefully for as long as they can because once they start blowing up buildings then most likely martial law or something similar will be declared and they will likely lose the ability to do anything unless they can win against the military. Additionally, they would likely end up alienating the general population, so there would be few places they could go to for support.
Hiding them? How did that work out for Anne Frank?
If the people keeping her family in hiding had chosen to open fire on the Gestapo instead of keeping her family's presence a secret, then it is not clear to me how it would have resulted in her living longer than she did.
The soldiers would be dead and they could all have fled somewhere else.
If they had believed it was the best option at the very beginning, then nothing had been stopping her family from fleeing somewhere else instead of going into hiding when it would have arguably been easiest to do so.
Also, it would not be enough to wound some of the soldiers; you would have to kill all of them before they were able to kill you and then capture your friends. Nonetheless, once her family had been discovered, I acknowledge that was really the only option that had a chance of keeping them from being captured. It is one thing to say that, though, and another to actually start shooting when you are the one faced with such a decision.
three paragraphs of bullshit.
You did not have to go out of your way to admit your lack of reading comprehension, but I appreciate you for doing so anyway! 😆
i read it, its just all nonsense. this non-violent solution bullshit needs to get lost. You are part of the problem.
What "non-violent solution bullshit"? I never said that violence was never an acceptable solution (in fact, nor did I even use the word "violence"), just that it should be called what it is.
But if I am part of the problem, let me ask you this: what acts of violence have you personally carried out recently to fight fascism? Or are you part of the problem too?
you sure fucking insinuated that it was.
Nope, that was entirely an invention on your part. Recall that my actual words were:
It is much better to acknowledge that blowing up the building is a non-peaceful act and then examine it critically in order to determine whether it is really worth it, then to dismiss it as being peaceful which makes it seem like it is not a big deal.
If, after examining it critically, you decide to go ahead, then so be it; you just shouldn't skip that step because blowing things up is kind of a big deal, even when merited.
(Believe it or not, I actually try my best to choose my words carefully in order to convey my position as clearly as possible; I cannot help the fact that people do not seem to put as much care into reading them in return.)
By I am extremely curious about how you would respond to the question in my comment, though:
But if I am part of the problem, let me ask you this: what acts of violence have you personally carried out recently to fight fascism? Or are you part of the problem too?
I would also add that if the answer to the first question is "none", then: why not?
But they didn't blow anything up?...
They didn't, but lots of people here have wished that they (or someone else) would.