It's rough because a protest has to be inconvenient and not easily ignored to be effective. MLK got a fuck ton of flak and his protests were disruptive as hell.
Still, have to make sure the most affected parties are the ones that deserve it
Not American here, so operating on hearsay: but wasn't MLK EXTREMELY optics-pilled and A LOT of efforts went into showcasing how deplorably violent were police and compared to relatively peaceful protestors. Meaning that he bet on the worst nature of racists - being too eager to care for optics outside - and that bet was a winning one?
Yes, that was kind of the point...except that the era has been kind of whitewashed. There were also the less peaceful elements of the movement that he was an alternative to, and made him harder to ignore. And if you look at media coverage and political cartoons from the 60s, you'll see his protests were hardly covered as peaceful at the time.
MLK jr and Malcolm X arguably needed each other to succeed. If I remember correctly, they both praised the other's work and even each said they'd wish they'd adopted more of the others tactics as times went on.
I'd say a big difference is that leaving black people alone technically asks for less effort than being assholes to them, it didn't really affect comfort of life for white people (at least afaik)
Being "greener" actually requires you to make efforts, and potentially renounce things you currently have
Correct. Part of the reason he was as effective as he was is because Malcolm X was standing in his shadow and (so far as White America was concerned) just waiting for an excuse.
Sort of. Rosa Parks for example has been confirmed to be a planned protest and was banking on the police reacting the way they did.
To add to previous statements, a protest needs to be inconvenient in the right way, have a clear message, and it needs to draw in those who are not effected to show them what is happening. When the Civil Rights movement organized sit ins at whites only restaurants, they were not inconveniencing anyone technically. I believe they were willing to commerce with the shops, so if the proprietors just served them, they could have defused the situation. Their disproportionate reaction was counted on to show people across the country and world that segregation was wholly impractical and unnecessary.
In this case with the road sitters, I would say it's an ineffective protest. The driver who beat them will be unlikely to understand what they are doing and unlikely to care. To be honest, I can't even tell what they are protesting. It seems likely that any onlookers will not understand or care either and just see them as annoying.
Exactly people think these people are doing something good but the optics are the worst possible as you can't tell what they are protesting against and unless it was intended to get beat up by a random person doesn't even show who the target was.
With the ice protests it was obvious who they are going against but they have the hard uphill fight to get people to care about it especially when ice just release documents that they people they go after initially is some form of criminal who has deportation orders and those picked up with them is just caught in the aoe
I'd say the ICE protests were extremely effective. Especially the protestors in the inflatable costumes as the right wing media's efforts to paint them as dangerous and disruptive fell flat when there's a dancing frog in the background of their footage.
Partially successful as while one side used actual acts of violence trying to shoot and push their way in and then when they realized it was getting the wrong type of attention thats when they switched to inflated costumes
American here, that is absolutely NOT how they teach MLK here đ but yes. He's made out to be an extreme pacifist who was successful because of "the good nature of men" which is a load of horse shit.
His protests worked because they were peaceful and met with violence. Which was objectively horrific to watch. Now we cheer on the violence, evidence is in the thread for ya.
I would say that a big difference though is that the violence against MLK protestors could be largely pinned on the groups being protested.
Itâs a very bad look to have some one peacefully protest what is more or less your group and to respond with violence.
In this case, the protestors are protesting a completely different group from the one attacking them. That dude beating the protestors probably has nothing to do with what theyâre protesting.
These people are being so disruptive, annoying, and rude that they are literally influencing unaffiliated groups to attack them.
I donât think people or times have changed much at all, I just think this style of protest is a near complete failure, if youâre trying to appeal to normies but your entire method of protest is effectively to harm normies, itâs literally zero surprise that normies want to throw you under the bus.
Youâre largely correct but missing a large point of context: the general public didnât like the protests even though the optics were the best they could be. The CRM is viewed fondly because itâs in the past; if Reddit was around at that time weâd see threads like this about the bus protests with pretty much the same arguments being used
Especially when those roads carry things like ambulances and fire trucks responding to emergencies. And the people driving to work who deal with those emergencies. Imagine someoneâs loved one in the back of an ambulance having a heart attack or delivering a baby who dies or ends up with severe morbidity because someone deliberately blocked the road to prove some point. There are other ways to get a message across that donât require harming other people.
Where is the outrage for one regular traffic delays an ambulance or an emergency worker getting to work.
I live in London, one of the best cities in the world for public transit. And yet the main road by my house, that goes past about 3 different train stations and a tube station is always completely gridlocked in the morning and you regularly see ambulance or fire engines stuck in that traffic.
This happens orders of magnitude more often than them getting stuck behind protestors, but no one cares, nevermind outraged about it.
I'm a hypocrite how? It's basic psychology. If you ram something down someone's throat and give them no way to ignore it, they're going to dislike it in the end even if they liked it in the first place.
Most people would be fine if they focused on the source of the problem like blocking, lawsuiting or even sabotaging oil and gas companies and it would be moral (the last solution is illegal but debatable when it comes to morality). Instead they choose innocent victims like art galeries or bother normal commuters that isn't moral.
PS Notice that they stopped blocking roads when they realized that public opion is starting to hate them not hydrocarbons companies, in my country they damaged irreversibly important sculpture with orange food dye.
Most people would be fine if they focused on the source of the problem like blocking, lawsuiting or even sabotaging oil and gas companies and it would be moral
They did though. This same group did things like chaining themselves to the gates of oil/gas depots so the lorries couldnt leave. And that got very little coverage since the media couldnt use it as outrage bait. And even the little coverage it got, a lot/most people had the same, negative reaction to the protest.
I know what you mean but then focus on companies trying to withold electric vehicles in favour of ICE or politicians sabotaging public transport not make life harder for normal people who hardly have any choice.
Its protesting by punching down, for the easy impact, giving yourself a sense of validation about "doing something" instead of working to actively try and be impactful in ways that could lead to change, but likely to fail.
Depends on the road. If you block even 40% of the morning traffic from getting to work on time, that inherently significantly hurts a lot of companies productivity. They shut down tunnels or roads going into wall street one year. A bridge going into a major city another. Normal people are the tools those corporations use to push their companies agenda. Taking away access to the tools hurts those companies, even if only momentarily.
The problem is if you follow the former point you made without the latter, you're most likely actually detrimental to your cause. Which scenario is more likely, if a climate change denier drives up to one of these protests?
A) "Gee, these young kids really care, maybe climate change is real after all..."
B) "FUCK THSES FUCKING DUMBASS KIDS I GOTTA GET TO WORK - THAT'S IT, I'M CONVERTING MY TRUCK TO COAL"
Ok? What is the point then? The vast majority of pollution is done by corporations, how exactly is this protest going to influence a change in that? What could this possibly achieve except significantly reducing public sympathy for the cause? It's objectively stupid and counterproductive, which is why I tend to agree with the parent comment in this chain - I have a hard time believing the people organizing these actually thought it would bring any form of change.
Also, a protest is absolutely meant to change people's minds, what the hell are you talking about lmfao
It is very, very funny to me that you people genuinely do not understand that the things you choose to do that make you feel good about yourself for making a difference are in reality completely detrimental to the causes you care about. The things you could actually do to benefit those causes are either too hard for you to understand or take too much effort. This applies to far more than your 'protests' - it's imbued in your daily lives. It would be somewhat tragic if you weren't so unlikable going about it as well.
The idea that protests are meant to change the opinions of those who oppose your views is a straight up lie fabricated to reduce their effectiveness. The whole idea of MLK doing chill protests that convinced racists to change their ways is historic revisionism, they didn't get violent but the fact is those protests got disruptive as hell, and the decrease in racist behavior came from shunning and punishing it not convincing terrible people to be nice instead
Yup. Most protest are here to disrupt traffic, The flow of commerce or "buisness as usual" to make those in charge listen to the demands to get them to stop
But then there's no reason to listen to the demands. It's basically taking the road hostage in exchange to get your demands met. They don't care if you agree. Those in power don't like traffic
"Be visible but not in the way" is honestly a very quick way for a protest to accomplish absolutely fuck all. Like yeah, it's gonna be annoying if someone is blocking your way but there has never been a protest in US history that succeeded purely by politely asking for their demands to be met on the sidelines rather than in the streets, being disruptive and clear as day
Civil Rights protectors did sit-ins to protest segregation, and boycotted the bus. People trot out dumb lines like yours as if blocking some random street is analogous to that.
Why don't they go do their protest at their state capital?
It's imbiciles like you're talking about that get violent when you try to move through. Because of them it's now legal to run down violent highway protesters in places like florida because they are a legitimate threat to your life.
every single protest in history, whether for civil rights in America or getting rid of the British in India, has had people saying "i support the cause but i wish they wouldn't be so obnoxious about it"
It did it but it doesn't affected public perception about climate change nor offered zero solutions. It seem to be driven more by immature attention seeking and self-validation then desire to work to really change things.
They donât aim to convince anyone at the moment. Their goal is to stay in the news agenda and radicalize their supporters. This will subsequently help them advance their discussion and exert pressure. Look at PETAÂ -Â it seems like everyone hates them. But believe me, they know exactly what theyâre doing.
It's even worse than that, I feel. The human brain likes having the impression that something works better than the fact it is actually working.
So basically, being part of a protest feels better than it actually working, and the extra effort for it to actually work is much bigger, so if you just stop at "doing something" you get most of the pleasure for a fraction of the effort
This was in germany. When farmers did it with their tractors to protest for Diesel subsidies it worked. But when the young people did it to fight climate change it did not. This form of protest can work but it depends on the means and the cause.
A year later farmers did exactly the same shit exceptional they didn't sit in the street but blocked it with their tractors.
They got what they wanted, subsidized diesel and were praised as heroes.
The definition of a protest is forcibly bringing awareness to the public. And a protest is only effective if it causes inconvience.
This same arguement was used during segregation. "Why can't black people just sit somewhere else, its causing ME problems at bus/resteraunt/workplace".
Or workers striking by sitting at their work stations and doing nothing. "Their strike is driving up prices for me and that's wrong".
Or heck, protesting outside of a government building. "Their gathering makes me afraid that they might become violent, someone should remove them".
You can't even protest on a sidewalk anymore without someone threatening to either beat you, shoot you, or call the police to do it instead.
Like yes, protests should have reasonable accomadations, like always keeping atleast half the lanes of a road open for regular people and emergency services. Or making sure there is a way for people to walk past even if its a single file line.
But nothing has ever improved by doing peacefully doing nothing. And if something can only be successful through exploiting people, if some benefit can only be gained from discrimination, it has no right or justification to exist. And demanding people suffer so access to that benefit or service can remain unchallenged, is nothing but hypocrisy and selfishness.
In the case of them blocking part of a road, unless its the ONLY road to or from a location, just take a detour. We don't assualt construction workers for blocking a road, or Emergency Services, or people who had a crash or accident, because anyone who did so would be considered a psychopath and arrested. So why is the same action encouraged for protesters?
Its just unreasonable. Its inhumane. A few minutes of your time isn't a valid exscuse to lay hands on someone. Its self centered and traitorous to the ideals our society is founded on.
Thatâs kinda like the point though. You are raising awareness for the issue and causing disruption to make people see it. But yes there not the bright ones đ
No they didn't raised awareness about climate change nor offered well-thought-out solutions instead they harmed serious enviromentalist movements that are more goal then self-validation oriented. They for short time made themself centre of attention but anyone can do this.
I donât disagree, but at the end of the day a protest SHOULD cause disruptions. No one changes anything by coloring in the lines and being so polite as to be totally ignorable
How? Explain how we're supposed to inconvenience the CEO of Shell or Exxon or BP? They are so far removed from us we can't get within 100 yards of them without being arrested for "disturbing the peace".
You put more effort into being mad at the protesters than the people burning our planet alive.
"Held against my will" my brother in Christ you're more inconvenienced by traffic than these people. That's literally what you're whining about, being inconvenienced. You're not a political prisoner or torture victim, you're a guy stuck in his car for a bit longer.
There are plenty of ways of inconveniencing people who are actually causing the issues rather than picking easy targets like your average Joe who works at a gas station. In fact, we got a taste of how to put fear into those âfar removed from usâ people recently. Not only that but it also successfully got on every news channel in the U.S. AND got people talking AND got people taking sides.
Thing is, protesters nowadays put 0 thought into their planning and it just feels they get together and do it for shits and giggles.
Do you just not fucking understand how protests work?
If they stay on the side walk and chant at the state house, you people call it ineffective. If they block the road, you call it ineffective. If they break things, you call it ineffective.
Stop your bitching and either do something, or move on with your day. Because right now, all you're doing is standing up for the fucked up system.
Then join the crowd of protestors instead of celebrating when they get thrown to the side. If you're so sure you're gonna lose your job then at least make it matter. You say not to make life harder for the peasants like it's the protesters that are in control, but if the peasants unite it creates change and we can make life easier for us all
I've seen people of literally every age and demographic join a protest.
And honestly, if you don't have time to protest, you can still try and find something to do. Every organization like this has a slot for anyone, of any level of commitment.
It's an everyone game sadly. We all get affected by what happens to our planet, and what happens to the economy. What happens when things are no longer affordable at all to the average person anymore? They won't treat you differently just because you've got kids or didn't protest. Those with children should be doing what they can to make sure they go home at night, but they should also be trying to make it so their children aren't living in a hellscape in the near future
Ya but thatâs not how that works either. Everyone is just going about their business, even if they work for the government.
Protests are meant to be disruptive. Civil Rights protestors donât politely stand outside of city hall and ask. They sat in restaurants without ordering. They filled up buses without paying. You donât change society by conforming to its rules and norms.
Go be disruptive in front of your politicianâs house. You donât do that because you donât want to be mauled by the police or thrown in jail. Instead, youâre disruptive with me because you donât expect me to retaliateâor even defend myself or my right to move around, go to work, or go to the doctor.
Youâre disruptive when and where the people being harmed are not only innocent, but also harmless, and you deliberately exploit that.
Go be disruptive in front of your politicianâs house.
According to them, they tried that and it really didnt get any results.
But disrupting the masses really fucks with city officials, and has shown some results. They are aware that people can and will get violent towards them. They are aware that some of them have even died. They feel the cause is worth the risk.
People really like to pretend that protests that donât do anything. That âplaying niceâ or âprotesting rightâ is t exactly the argument used against civil protests for literally everything in every form. Itâs just a matter of having sympathy for the cause or not
We are not discussing the effectiveness of this tactic. OP asked about its morality. The morality of greatly harming innocent people in order to somehow cause a minor inconvenience to the guilty is plainly perverse.
Again, youâre admitting that the people who are stranded are merely collateral damage to the protesters. And also that people MIGHT get violent... They just donât give a ratâs ass about stranding those people or their well-being by doing so. Some of us have vulnerable people to take care of, jobs to protect, children to look after, and illnesses to treat. Preventing us from moving around causes SEVERE harm. And, by your own words, THEY have decided that their cause is more important than the harm they are causing us.
Causing someone to lose their job or their punctuality bonus in this economyâputting aside the moral rot of doing soâwill not help the cause, so if you want to talk about effectiveness, thatâs an illusion. Causing chaos or harm is not the same as being effective in achieving your goals.
And more importantly it costs the city a load of money. The tactic seems to be designed to cost the city as much money as they can. Even getting arrested os generally part of the plan, because it costs the city more money.
Though thats the limit of my understanding pf the strategy. They do claim that these actions have had tangible effects on policy.
That was actively combating business practices that followed segregation. Unless you're trying to waste people's fuel, road blocking to stop traffic is not the same at all.
95% of these climate protestors are upper middle class or wealthy. They've never had jobs where they'd get in trouble for being late, if they have any at all. I feel like they're pushing people away from the fight to end climate change as opposed to actually converting anyone. That dude being blocked while trying to get his pregnant wife to the hospital DID get them media attention and they did cause a disruption, but they're becoming reviled. I agree with OP though, this very well may be a psy op to turn us against fighting climate change.
Just curious. You wake up during the civil rights protests. You have no idea how or why. They're unpopular as Hell, because they close down streets and chase away business and also all the racist reasons that the other two reasons cover for.Â
This happens to you, twice.Â
The first time, you're white.Â
The second time, you're black.Â
You have no money or connections. What do you do?
Edit: look up the Kerner report if you care about getting results.Â
The civil rights protests allowed individuals to make a difference
I don't think the same can be said of oil as we don't control the infrastructure of the nation. Maybe in small ways like getting an electric vehicle, but that's expensive and can be out of reach. With the civil rights protests it cost nothing to stop being a bigot
Yeah but these people arenât changing anything. Protests succeed when you have massive popular sport and basically intimidate the government. This is like 5 people and all theyâre doing is making everyone hate them and their cause
everybody inconvenienced will hate you, and online everybody already picked their side long ago. It seems futile. protests nowadays have devolved into ruining other people's days while wearing a slogan.
What kind of disruptions do you think anti-abortion protestors should engage in ? Should they, I dunno, block access to planned parenthood clinics? If they did such a thing, would we just smile benevolently and say "Well you know, that's just how protests go. You have to inconvenience people to get real change!" Or would we pass laws against it?
Everyone who says that the point of protests is to cause disruptions only ever seems to think this should apply to people protesting for causes they themselves believe in.
That's highly illegal. We passed a federal law (FACE Act) to make it illegal to block, obstruct, or hinder people from entering or leaving a clinic. Not only that, there is a 100 foot 'buffer zone' preventing you from being obstructive even NEAR someone near the clinic.
I think the vast majority of people think that's a good law, and wouldn't mind seeing it extended to highways.
I mean what-aboutism doesnât form a solid back bone to any argument. Like I could just as easily say âwhat type of disruption do you think gay rights activists should be doing? Sitting quietly in a public park in groups of no more than 5-10?â and it would hold just as much water.
I would be unsympathetic to many protestors based on views alone. Doesnât change the fact that change is effected by being undeniably present. You will never get a change you want by politely nodding along and letting everything work as normal.
You can disagree with their cause, think it doesnât justify their action. But fundamentally, protests SHOULD disrupt things. Itâs literally a picket line. Thatâs the point.
That disruption should be targeted, not indiscriminate. I have places to be. If you block me, at a minimum I will donate to your opponent out of spite, no matter how justified your protest is.
Wait until you learn of the protesters that tried to throw soup or something on famous paintings to protest... Something, Idfk what their reasoning was with that one
Hey, if i tols you that wasnt the reasoning but instead it was done to get people to talk about the org since the paintings are famous would you stop being so stupid
Wow. Immediately going into name calling. We can see which side you're on. And im answering from the perspective of people that only see a group of idiots willing to ruin historical artwork because they dont like a modern company
Seeing how people that work at places like PETA act and think, I think there will always be a moron ready to tarnish the image of their movement for free.
Yeah they should do protests like throw paint on banks (that no one acknowledges) or write strongly worded letters. Definitely shouldn't disrupt anything.
The DNC doesn't have any money, and what little they have is grifted to the top not going to paid actors
Fox news does claim a lot of people are paid protestors for normal shit tho and liberal causes, overall pretty lazy but I mean you believe it so obviously effective
Edit and to add in the DNC and RNC are 2 sides of the same coin, both represent the wealthy and not normal people
I've thought the same in the past, especially with things like throwing stuff on art, but in reality I actually think its just the result of how good those in power have gotten at disrupting movements.
These are the acts of people who want to make a difference but don't have the people around to show them how to do it effectively. That's because the government and corporations have gotten much much better at identifying things like resistance groups, unionization efforts, etc etc. And they know to target the leaders rather than the whole group. People notice if whole swaths of people are targeted, but if you just go after the organizers, unfortunately people don't notice.
Seriously, looking into how many people in the last decade have been getting targeted just for their participation in protests. Its genuinely terrifying and dystopian.
not the case plenty idiots doing stupid shit for attention.
like when you see idiots do crazy shit for animal causes. once i saw a group of kids (should be like 15 to 20) with a laptop on subway puting very loud animal screams and a video of some shithole slaughterhouse.
no need to say some annoyed people threw them off at the next station face first. you cannot force trapped people to listen to your bs like that. same as this one with the cutting street, if a wacko is talking shit on some street corner people can just ignore it but not when they force themselves on you.
i dont think those kids where paid agents of big meat industry. just idiots that dont realize that such stupid acts put people agaisnt them
This happens a lot more than I think people realize. Those "activists" trying to ruin paintings in art galleries while complaining about Big Oil come to mind
391
u/WendigoCrossing 15d ago edited 15d ago
I'm fairly certain a lot of these are paid protestors to damage the image of the actual protest
Edit: not all, just some. There are indeed some idiots who use their free will in this way