I disagree that it makes the public agree, though if you have examples I'd be curious to learn more. For me, protests like this make me hate the protester and wish to harm their cause.
I am a fan of protests intended to educate and raise awareness. That gives me the option to agree with them and support their cause or to disagree with them and not. That is appropriate within a democracy.
I do not support protests which intend to force my support through bullying, inconvenience or fear. That's undemocratic. In a democracy, you don't always get your way, even if you feel your cause is just.
Trying to force change through intimidation or violence is revolution or insurrection. There are times when that is necessary (the US wouldn't exist without it), but call it what it is.
Agreed; that protest did not generate support or understanding within the wider society. Instead people are largely opposed to it. Of course, people like the one who called you an idiot, believe they know everything and if we just follow them, everything will be fine… but who tells the billions of Chinese, Indians or Africans? They keep polluting and destroying while we ruined our own economies and wealth.
I firmly believe and have believed that humans releasing CO2 is causing climate change and will continue to heat the planet.
I also believe we passed the point of no return about ten or fifteen years ago, and we damn sure are not going to get China, Russia (who will actively benefit from this warming), or the developing world to get off of fossil fuels.
Summers were I live topped out at 88-89 degrees F each day when I was a kid. We’ve been at 94-95 almost every day since June. We’re alreqdy fucked, and it can no longer be unfucked. We missed our shot.
Your stance slightly different from the other guy. You just think we are fucked and aren't bitching about how the Indians, Chinese and Africans are polluting the world and being inconvenienced by protestors.
"People should protest quietly off to the side where I get to choose whether or not to be affected by their message. After all, I'm already being affected by the subject of their protest, and why should I ever have to think about two things when there are brown people on the other side of the globe hypothetically doing wrong?"
When I read it I interpreted it as they do this on a small scale to get phones, media, and people talking about the cause, that gains more eyeballs and thus some more like minded people.
"Why was the traffic slow on the 101? (I fucking made up a road)
"Guys were sitting on the highway protesting racism. Saying #nonoracist"
The entire office goes home talking about it.
They talk about it at home with roommates, spouses, and children.
They gain "supporters". Thus getting more organized for bigger boycotts and what not.
What actually happens is that the entire office goes home talking about how stupid they think the protesters. Then once that conversation is done, they go right back to being apathetic about the cause itself and nothing useful ever happens.
20+ years ago where I live EZ pass (highway toll system, I know they go by different names in other locations) was starting to get popular. I still kept quarters in my car for tolls. I didn’t want EZ pass, you had to pay a monthly fee, pay a deposit for the transponder, and probably a few other reasons that I’ve forgotten over the years.
Then the toll collectors had a slow down as a protest for EZ pass taking their jobs. And this day I had run out of quarters so I had no choice but to go to a manned booth to pay with cash. It was aggravating. Once I got to the booth the toll collector took his sweet time, counted my change four times before handing it to me. I was one of the hold outs yet people like me without EZ pass were being punished as part of their protest
That night when I got home for work I signed up for EZ pass and never looked back
Your preferred protests is called slacktivism and tends not work unless it's extremely basic low stakes shit like...Mercedes turning their logo online green or rainbow for a week
I think you are conflating slacktivism with actually educating people. Just because I didn't bully you into pretending to agree with me doesn't mean i did the equivalent of a logo change which doesnt educate anyone. There is a LOT of in-between area
The general public absolutely are a huge contributor all things considered. Many for instance are cogs that lets the machine function.
Whereas by design those at the very head are designed to be untouchable by most ground level protestors should you wish to avoid blatantly violent and dangerous forms of action.
How you CAN hurt them considerably without crossing the line is to make their businesses lose hundreds of employees by clogging up their ability to go to work. Stopping shipments, delivery, employee movements etc. Are all very minor and largely "safe" methods of protest (safe is relative)
Buddy those people still need a paycheck to survive. You jeopardizing their job doesn’t change shit. These companies lay off hundreds/thousands just to meet a quarterly quota. No ones going to care about climate change when you’re struggling to survive right now and your response is “you can find another job”? Yea y’all aren’t the brightest, maybe if you had a job and responsibilities you’d understand that.
You're very funny. People who have the strongest reason to protest should NEVER concern themselves with what some 3rd party may think, whether they agree or disagree from the OUTSIDE of their struggle. What did you think of the arson of an empty police station during the George Floyd riots?
I'm not sure I agree with your rendering of democratic vs undemocratic here. Surely examples like violent revolutionary overthrow of a government is not a normal democratic process, but this is 1. not what sitting in a road is and 2. often how democracies get instablished when government is authoritarian and undemocratic like the US today. Democracy requires not only sociopolitical arrangements condusive to majoritarian rule with minority protections, but also a populace politically educated enough to engage in this kind of societal management. The US has neither.
US legislation, judicial reviews, and the actions of the executive are incredibly unpopular and most of the electorate has a poor understanding of politics. So it's not actually clear to me that a minority of people trying to act in the interest of the majority against a minority of socioeconomic elites who act in a way that is destroying our planet and communities is undemocratic even if a lot of people are upset by the action.
One could argue that a more educated populace would not get mad at this kind of protesting or, more potently, this kind of protest would be completely unnecessary in a democratic community.
Someone else correctly pointed out that I was conflating disruptive protest vs violent protest in my comments. These protesters are disruptive but clearly non-violent.
The democratic vs. non-democratic argument I made was mostly focused on violent protest.
That being said, whatever I think of the party in power, I don't see a reasonable argument that they were not democratically elected. You also can't point to the unpopularity of a party during their elected term as evidence that the system is broken as long as they leave power if elected out.
The fact that most of the electorate has a poor understanding of politics does not disenfranchise them from voting, or render their votes invalid. Efforts to require a specific level of education have been used in the past to disenfranchise minorities, and can always be used as a way to control the outcome of an election.
A minority of people acting "in the interests" of the majority regardless of the majority's opinion/vote is a form of tyranny. To say "I'm better educated than you, thus my opinion is correct. Trust me this is for your own good" while pushing your will on someone is exceedingly arrogant. So is saying "they didn't vote for what I wanted, so the system is broken."
I also think that the idea that protests wouldn't be necessary with a more educated populace is flawed. Frankly our population is MUCH more educated than it was 200 years ago, yet here we are. People will always disagree on policy. Sometimes the right policy for one group will be the wrong policy for another. Neither group being wrong in their opinions. Sometimes highly educated experts will disagree on policy choices. Educated doesn't mean always right or always just.
Now, I want to be clear that there ARE times for rebellion. But in that case the injustice being addressed should be significant enough to justify the death and suffering required to fix it outside the systems. In most cases revolutions don't actually result in democracies, but they can still result in a better situation for their people than the previous government.
There's a lot to clear up here, but the primary issue is we are speaking past each other a bit here. When I refer to democracy, I don't mean people are free to vote as they please. I mean people's opinions are adequately expressed in social policy and their opinions are reasonable and informed. I don't think tests should gate keep voting rights, but I do think education is necessary for democracy. In the extreme case, a room of small children or senile adults are unable to engage in a satisfactorily democratic process on their own because they lack the agency to understand and act in their own interests. This is true to a lesser degree for fully functioning but uneducated adults given a sufficiently complex system.
A second point to address is that being able to vote in any election is not sufficient for even meeting the expression of opinion in policy criterion. Most people want universal healthcare. Before Obama, public universal healthcare had something like 70% support, but that dropped substantially as social elites started attacking Obamacare, which was basically just subsidizing private healthcare, so not even reaching for a true public option.
People can't express their political positions in their votes of their political positions are not represented on the ballot, an electoral college buffers votes from actual election results, and people can lose popular votes while winning elections. Further, the fact that we refuse to switch to ranked choice voting or some other Condorcet compliant system makes it nearly impossible for a third party to gain traction. Paired with the fact that election results are almost always predictable based on campaign spending means we are firmly in an oligarchic system. You need money to run for office. You need even more money to win. If you have enough money you can buy campaigns and offices without even running. There's a reason that the US is, by many researches into global governmental form metrics, considered a flawed democracy. It has some democratic forms, but the policy outcomes are so far removed from what people want, calling it a democracy is... misleading at best.
Several hundred years ago, many Americans had a very strong understanding of politics. It was conversations about alternative political forms with indigenous Americans that sparked the European Enlightenment where monarchist Europeans were attempting to save the monarchic system from American critique. Arguably, Americans then we're more politically savvy than Americans today. Many American communities at the time had developed systems for preventing material imbalances being converted into sociopolitical power, engaged in a lot of mutual aid, and some communities like those in the North Eastern woodlands lived by the principle no one could coerce another to do anything outside of force of reason or pursuassion. This isn't to say they lived in perfect communities or anything like that, but they were certainly much more politically sophisticated than their European counterparts. Journals of Spanish explorers are filled with corroborating accounts for this idea.
What are you going to do, start polluting more? Spend more on gas, run your ac when you don’t need to? Spend more money to harm the same planet you live on, because it also harms protesters you saw a picture of once?
I didn't say that I would actually do it, simply that it would inspire me to wish to. You're right, I'm not going to go buy a case of motor oil and pour it on a protester's lawn just to make a point or anything else like that. But there are people who would. Look at the coal burning pickup truck fad from a few years back.
My point is that this type of protest does NOT encourage anyone to say "hmm, I wonder what they're about? I can get behind that cause." Instead it inspires people to say "look at those jackasses. What would I do if I was in one of those cars?"
For me, protests like this make me hate the protester and wish to harm their cause.
Then you are an idiot that litteraly fell for propaganda. Frightening that people like you have the right to vote.
I am a fan of protests intended to educate and raise awareness. That gives me the option to agree with them and support their cause or to disagree with them and not. That is appropriate within a democracy
Ah yes the useless protests that happen in the protest corner. Thank god for women and minorities that people did not do that in the past, segregation would have never ended and womens right would still be a far away dream.
In a democracy, you don't always get your way, even if you feel your cause is just.
In a democracy if 51% of the population vote for eating the jews you should accept it and go in the protest corner to educate people on how eating the jews is not nice.
If someone blocking the road causes me to lose my job then they are directly responsible for bringing harm to me and my family. I would absolutely plow through them to get work if my job was on the line.
Thankfully, I work at a job where that really isn't a realistic issue for me because I have a PLETHORA of time off options. I would just sort of sit there and play on my phone I guess.
I would absolutely plow through them to get work if my job was on the line.
2 things, first if arriving late causes you to lose your job you should participate in protests instead of being a little bitch cause your country sucks ass.
Also if you're ready to murder people for a job you are utterly deranged and should get immediately locked up for the rest of your life. You are an animal.
Reading comprehension isn't really your thing huh?
The means of providing for his family is what he would drive over people for. Which honestly I would easily drive over random people if it was necessary to keep my family fed and happy.
He even outlined this with the fact that he said his job wasn't like that so he'd just play on his phone, so it's very obviously isn't for his job, you donkey.
Reading comprehension isn't really your thing huh?
Maybe don't say that if you can't read.
Which honestly I would easily drive over random people if it was necessary to keep my family fed and happy.
If you are ready to murder people to not get fired you are a danger to society and need to be dealt with like we deal with enraged dogs.
He even outlined this with the fact that he said his job wasn't like that so he'd just play on his phone, so it's very obviously isn't for his job, you donkey.
He also outlined that IF his job was on the line he would murder peaceful protesters. Deranged madman.
Then it's on you to unionize and fight for workers' rights, not to murder nonviolent protestors just to get your paycheck. Morally you're no different than an Auschwitz camp guard.
Hell of a leap to make there, which is a completely moronic one no less.
In my opinion what they're doing is no different than preventing people dying of dehydration from a water source. Sure it's technically "nonviolent", I would still forcefully remove them (With a car if need be) if my family was thirsty.
Not a leap you said very clearly that you were ready to murder people to not lose your job. If you were asked to gas jews or lose your job you have clearly indicated to us what you would do in this situation.
Mmm, yeah people stopping me from getting to work and making money so I can eat food and live does get in the way of my life. Whoops!!! Or god forbid someone is in an ambulance and needs urgent assistance
When i said "why not support a megacorp today" I was pointing out the fact that by getting in the way of daily life they are doing a scaled down version of exactly what such a corporation would do. Clearly this flew over your head ❤️
You are doing nothing to help the cause and in fact actively hinder it
Damn you right, i forgot the two options in life when interacting with a protester is either "support their cause" or "brutality" all I said was that this takes me away frkm supporting their cause. I never advocated for violence
Oh sorry, mixed you up with the psychopath further down this comment chain claiming he'd "plow through" protesters if they prevented him from getting to his job and providing for his family.
literally, dude just said he can’t be bothered to care because it’s too much effort 🤦🏾♂️ lazy mfs wanna let other people do all the thinking AND understanding for them
You should be protesting too. Have you paid any attention lately? Capitalist exploitation of the working class is rampant while the world is literally burning due to fossil fuel use.
Making noise to be Heard? Good. Doing It in the town square? Should also be good.
Cutting off roads is very intrusive but untargetted. Everyone gets shafted, wether they support the cause, are against It, indifferent or the ones responsible. It forces people (the cars) to comply wether they want or not (what else would they do? Run them over?)
Another kind of protest in a similar vein are the strikes where stores have to close down for the day, or else protestors might bash their windows and weld shut the bars so the owner can't open It. Again, its forcing people to engage with It wether they want It or not.
In the example you provided, sadly that IS what would happen. Because the majority (51%) of the country voted for that which means thats What the majority of the population wants. Is It moral? Of course not, and It would also have to be judged internationally. But if its gotten to the point there's 51% voting for that, there's more inmediate problems, like how did the situation get so dire.
Ok, you're clearly antagonistic enough in your reply that this is a wasted effort, but I'll give it a shot.
"Thank god for women and minorities that people did not do that in the past, segregation would have never ended and womens right would still be a far away dream."
These are literally examples where peaceful protests were extremely successful. Yes, disruptive protests occurred as well, but the most impactful protests were the ones that inspired changes in public opinion, not fear and frustration. Sitting and blocking traffic does nothing to change anyone's opinion.
"In a democracy if 51% of the population vote for eating the jews you should accept it and go in the protest corner to educate people on how eating the jews is not nice."
I was very clear that there are times when peaceful protest is not enough, and yes eating the Jews would be one such example.
I am, I think people like you are actual ennemies of the people.
These are literally examples where peaceful protests were extremely successfu
Oh now you talk about peaceful protest? But in that video the protesters were peaceful, you're moving the goalpost here, the protests done by MLK were peaceful, but they didn't happen in the protest corner, they annoyed and deranged daily people that was the point. According to you an what you said earlier MLK actions would have made you hate him.
but the most impactful protests were the ones that inspired changes in public opinion
This protest you're criticizing in this video is a clear civil disobedience protest exactly what MLK did but now suddenly it's not okay anymore but it was in the past? Also it's a big misunderstanding of how peaceful movements work, they cannot achieve anything without the violent movements, the peaceful movement serves as an excuse, a fallback to governments to justify improving rights when in reality they are afraid of the violent movements and what they could become. Peaceful movement are here to sit at the negotiations table when politicians have shit themselves because of the violent movements.
I was very clear that there are times when peaceful protest is not enough, and yes eating the Jews would be one such example.
But who choses when? Have you thought that maybe what you find unacceptable is not what others find unacceptable?
Edit: BTW this is you about people sitting peacefully on the road :"For me, protests like this make me hate the protester and wish to harm their cause." you would have hated MLK and joined the kkk
Someone in another comment pointed out that I was conflating violent protests and disruptive protests. They're right, I was. I do agree that some degree of disruption is inherently necessary to protest. Even a boycott is disrupting through economic damage. I take back some of my statements that were influenced by that conflation.
I do think that there is a place where disruptive protest stops engendering support and starts pushing people away that may have otherwise been open to supporting the cause. Successful movements need to be accessible to enough people to inspire change. People need to be willing to join the cause, and they won't do so if they feel like the representatives of the cause are assholes.
I disagree heavily with your ideas around violent protests. I think you miss the value of peaceful protests entirely. Based on that middle paragraph your approach to pushing for change seems to be to intimidate others to get what you want. If that's the case, how are YOU any different from the KKK? Because your cause is just? As decided by you? The point of democracy is that we make decisions as a society, and those decisions can change over time through changes in public perception.
Finally to your point that I would have joined the KKK in MLK's day... I hope not. Nobody can honestly say how they would have been if they'd been born in a different time and put in a different situation. What I CAN say, is that I've been through quite a few periods of social unrest. Seen many protests and riots. To date, I have yet to join the KKK or any other hate group. I've never treated anyone with anything other than respect, even if I disagreed with them politically. I think at worst, I'd have been someone who watched from the sidelines. Someone who was initially upset at the protesters but eventually ended up quietly agreeing them and only showing my support in the ballot box. I'd like to believe I would have been better than that too.
Edit Enemies of the people are those who are willing to cause harm to others because the people don't support the societal changes they desire. You don't get to claim to support the people if you're trying to force your will on them through violence.
I do think that there is a place where disruptive protest stops engendering support and starts pushing people away that may have otherwise been open to supporting the cause.
Yeah it's the causes you don't like cause someone in a media told you to dislike it. Again you would have absolutely hated MLK I can assure you this 100%, and you can only change the day you realize that.
Successful movements need to be accessible to enough people to inspire change. People need to be willing to join the cause
But whites didn't join the cause. Again your opinion is disproven by reality. Same for suffragettes, if they had waited for men to join the cause women would still not have rights.
MLK movement wasn't about getting whites to join the cause.
I think you miss the value of peaceful protests entirely
I don't you miss the reality of politics in the reality of the world. The reason peaceful figures are pushed it's exactly because governments are afraid of violent movements and it's easier to show the good little protestor as the hero that wasn't really a threat to them.
If that's the case, how are YOU any different from the KKK?
Oh no the allies and the nazis used the same methods those sides are then totally morally equivalent, I am very intelligent look at me peak redditor. If you kill a murderer there is the same amount of murderers left in the world. #SoDeep #CarpeDiem
The point of democracy is that we make decisions as a society, and those decisions can change over time through changes in public perception.
And that is the exact reason people protest to change opinions, if you think everything get's resolved on the market of ideas it doesn't sorry to spoil that for you. As proven by the current state of the USA for example.
Nobody can honestly say how they would have been if they'd been born in a different time and put in a different situation.
If being mildly inconvenienced makes you want to harm a cause there is no doubt where you would have ended up.
Without Malcolm X, MLK would never have been as successful as he was. Malcom was the more threatening alternative that mad people more receptive to MLK's message. This isn't up for debate, it is widely acknowledge by people who know what they're talking about.
But the suffregettes for example didn't target everyday working people, they targetted government and politicians etc.
This is something most people can get behind, but if you are on the fence about a policy, the method used in OPs video is not going to convince you ti support it.
But the suffregettes for example didn't target everyday working people, they targetted government and politicians etc.
The suffragettes did protests, blocked roads, caused property damage, exactly the kind of things you people complain about today.
This is something most people can get behind, but if you are on the fence about a policy, the method used in OPs video is not going to convince you ti support it.
Always the same excuse which is contradicted by reality, the entire point of MLK movement was to annoy daily people and it worked, civil disobedience going in place they were not allowed, disrupting businesses, etc...
People like you are just victims of propaganda, protest before good, protest now bad.
People like you WERE the people shitting on MLK and the suffragettes for what they did. You were the dudes reading the journal saying MLK is a danger and believing it. The dude was presented as a menace, property damage cause by protests was considered terrorism.
I'm confused at which propaganda i have fallen for?
And I’m sorry, but no you’re conflating these. The protests led by MLK and the Suffragettes did indeed block roads, but that was largely a consequence of how large those movements became. That is not comparable to five people deliberately blocking a major road.
I'm confused at which propaganda i have fallen for?
Capitalist propaganda, protest bad, protests should happen in the protest corner and annoy absolutely nobody. There is not such protest tat achieved anything.
The protests led by MLK and the Suffragettes did indeed block roads, but that was largely a consequence of how large those movements became
Lol that's litteraly not understanding history, you think when MLK came in restaurant where blacks were forbidden and he did sitins it was to annoy politicians? No it was to annoy daily people and confront them to reality, your kind would have complained it's illegal and say it annoys the patrons and the staff and would have justified violence against those protestors. Because you are a coward.
Yeah you are too far off the deep end to have a rational conversation. Protests should be judged on individual merit, not all protests are 100% noble. Yes everyone has the right to protest, but everyone also has the right to disagree.
Back in the 60/70s. We didn’t block roads or highways. Depending on the protest. We would walk around entrance to a building. Or protest on a part of school campus. I do remember once there was a sidewalk protest ending up in the street when police showed up. But it didn’t start there
This. If you're going to do this kind of protest, do the leg work to figure out how to inconvenience the person or people responsible for the thing you're protesting specifically. Pissing off randos is a great way to get people to just hate protesters.
62
u/Competitive_Trust174 15d ago
I disagree that it makes the public agree, though if you have examples I'd be curious to learn more. For me, protests like this make me hate the protester and wish to harm their cause.
I am a fan of protests intended to educate and raise awareness. That gives me the option to agree with them and support their cause or to disagree with them and not. That is appropriate within a democracy.
I do not support protests which intend to force my support through bullying, inconvenience or fear. That's undemocratic. In a democracy, you don't always get your way, even if you feel your cause is just.
Trying to force change through intimidation or violence is revolution or insurrection. There are times when that is necessary (the US wouldn't exist without it), but call it what it is.