4 ms·

I used to be unconvinced that physical 'on location' demonstrations with signs and whatnot were useful. I no longer think that. Now I suspect that they are ac

by Crito 12y ago

I used to be unconvinced that physical 'on location' demonstrations with signs and whatnot were useful. I no longer think that. Now I suspect that they are actively harmful. The moment you do that, you invite easy comparisons between yourself/your cause and several heavily maligned causes/groups which use similar tactics, such as anti-abortion protesters, tea party groups, and worse of all: "Occupy [location]" groups. If the objective is to increase public awareness, then there are more media-savvy ways of going about that. If the objective is to influence the opinions of the people who are in the immediate geographic neighborhood of your protest, then it might work but not in the way that you intended... You will likely inspire disdain where there was once apathy.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Excuse me? Physical, on-site protests using signs to convey disdain is not a tactic limited to any one group, it is the universal protest technique throughout the globe and has been so for longer than I can probably imagine.
- Crito 12y ago
  I did not say that it is or has been limited to any one group. I am saying that several different groups have poisoned the well for other groups who wish to use that tactic.
ANTSANTS 12y ago
On the other hand, physical protests actually get covered by the news, while you'll never see "person got mad on the internet" on CNN.
- Crito 12y ago
  They are "covered" by the news for values of "covered" which include "mocked". When you give a third party (the media, in this case) the ability to MITM your message (through selective editing, and 'editorial' segments in which the talking heads openly insult and belittle the protesters), "any publicity is good publicity" is no longer true. The way to avoid this is to not rely on the media to broadcast your message, but to do it yourself. That way concerned or interested members of the public can access your unadulterated message, not just a version of it that was hashed up by cable news.

by Crito 12y ago

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

Excuse me? Physical, on-site protests using signs to convey disdain is not a tactic limited to any one group, it is the universal protest technique throughout the globe and has been so for longer than I can probably imagine.

Crito 12y ago
I did not say that it is or has been limited to any one group. I am saying that several different groups have poisoned the well for other groups who wish to use that tactic.

ANTSANTS 12y ago

On the other hand, physical protests actually get covered by the news, while you'll never see "person got mad on the internet" on CNN.

Crito 12y ago
They are "covered" by the news for values of "covered" which include "mocked". When you give a third party (the media, in this case) the ability to MITM your message (through selective editing, and 'editorial' segments in which the talking heads openly insult and belittle the protesters), "any publicity is good publicity" is no longer true. The way to avoid this is to not rely on the media to broadcast your message, but to do it yourself. That way concerned or interested members of the public can access your unadulterated message, not just a version of it that was hashed up by cable news.