4 ms·

The sit-ins were specifically targeted to break the laws they wanted changed. I don’t think many people are protesting laws saying that you can’t stand in the m

• autoexec 3y ago
  Activists protesting the Vietnam war weren't participating in sit-ins to change the laws about loitering around campus buildings or in government offices. The people who chain themselves to trees scheduled to be cut down aren't protesting to change laws concerning tree bondage. Some sit-ins are planned as narrowly targeted acts of civil disobedience, but others are simply acts of passive resistance and they are no less valid as a means of protest. While at a high enough level of disruption, the acts of protesters might harm public support of the cause, I think that level is probably pretty high and supporters will largely understand if they are temporarily inconvenienced, while some people who already oppose the protestor's cause will tend to use any inconvenience as a more socially acceptable excuse to justify their opposition instead of more honest reasons like plain old bigotry.