312

Barcelona anti-tourism protesters fire water pistols at visitors (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

197 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Protesters in Barcelona have sprayed visitors with water as part of a demonstration against mass tourism.

Demonstrators marching through areas popular with tourists on Saturday chanted “tourists go home” and squirted them with water pistols, while others carried signs with slogans including “Barcelona is not for sale.”

Thousands of protesters took to the streets of the city in the latest demonstration against mass tourism in Spain, which has seen similar actions in the Canary Islands and Mallorca recently, decrying the impact on living costs and quality of life for local people.

The demonstration was organised by a group of more than 100 local organizations, led by the Assemblea de Barris pel Decreixement Turístic (Neighborhood Assembly for Tourism Degrowth).

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

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yes a kid being bullied by their peers in a school with a bucket of water is the same as adult tourists in a foreign city being squirt as a protest against rampant overtourism. Why didn't I see the overt similarities. It's definitely more than just the use of water

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago

See, I said you didn't understand his point, and you've just proven it. He never directly compared those two acts, but in your stupidity, you can't seem to see something that obvious.

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The point is idiotic and ignores all context between the two acts. It literally does compare the two acts or it's irrelevant to bring up. That's what an analogy does.

Except for dumb as shit Internet debater assholes who base their usernames on mid tier novelists, I guess.

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago

Your point is idiotic, that's why it's easily countered by an analogy that is not relevant to the story. Maybe you should've countered him with a better point, instead of relying on overused talking points such as false equivalence to avoid thinking more logically. His point was only to show how stupid the point you brought up was, not to serve as an analogy to the real act.

Not only are you unable to think logically, you even had to rely on mocking my username to try and win this argument. Why so desperate that you had to use such a classic Internet debater move? The projection is really just the icing on the cake.

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, you see:

I was drunk when I replied because I do have a social life
Mocking you wasn't part of my argument. I made that in the first paragraph (about context and similarly). I just mocked you because I didn't like you. As you know, Professor Logician, an insult being included in an argument doesn't necessarily make the argument an ad hominem.

The original user didn't reply to my disagreement like a maladjusted prick, unlike you. So they got a civil disagreement back.

Unlike them, I do hope you get "attacked" by a 5 year old with a water gun this summer. 🤓

this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024

312 points (97.0% liked)

World News

39144 readers

1051 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.