4 ms·

protest are MEANT to be disruptive IT'S THEIR WHOLE POINT this are really dark times

• nirimda 3y ago
  The point of a protest is (in a liberal authoritarian state) to change a policy or (in a democracy) to change public opinion. The mechanism is by being disruptive. But they've been so singularly useless at changing public opinion that some delusional people have concluded that the disruption is the point. It's almost certain that some mainstream electoral activity like door knocking would be more effective at changing the minds of people who disagree with you, but this is frowned upon because it involves treating those who disagree with you as a potential ally to be won over instead of a foe to be cowed.
• omegabravo 3y ago
  There's a big fat blurry line here. If someone is protesting the use of green energy by chaining themselves to an electric powered rail road track, is that okay? That's effectively what has happened but was a different cause. The cause should be irrelevant, we can't pick and chose how disruptive it can be based on how much we currently agree with it. IMHO disruptive protests are ineffective anyway, in fact they often alienate people. Effective protests are ones with clear messages and lots of coverage. You don't need to be disruptive for that, though it can help. The punishment should be the same whether it's about protesting or not.