We’ve got this warped idea that a proper protest is when some people gather in some designated area that the authorities allow them to, and they don’t inconvenience anyone. That’s absurd when you consider what a protest is about.
Many people want their protests to be very disruptive but forget they’re not the only ones with grievances.
They’re a lot of people willing to grind society to a halt over any perceived slight, across all ideologies…let us just unleash the craze then.
Is your point that since I presumably am pro-choice (correct) since this is a more liberal forum I will disagree with this point? Well I don’t. The same principles apply. Those who want to illegalize abortion or whatever have to follow the same principles.
Sometimes they break the law by blocking doors or shoving people (or worse) and get arrested. That's their right too.
Sometimes they break the law and don't get arrested because local law enforcement is sympathetic to their cause. That is a problem. Otherwise, sure, they can protest in ways that inconvenience people.
Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law.
It’s not just an inconvenience and I dislike this type of minimization. Breaking the law isn’t okay - we have laws as a society for reason. There are legal ways to protest and argue for change. Standing on a sidewalk and speaking (within noise limitations) is okay in most jurisdictions, provided you aren’t blocking others from passing through. But taking over shared infrastructure like roads or airports or universities is not okay. No one is entitled to abuse society just because they’re unhappy that their views aren’t heard. At least in the US, there are many other ways to convince others peacefully.
Regardless of your political views, I would say that yes indeed it is, local law enforcement is too sympathetic to many popular causes. We have witnessed it with BLM burning and looting stores, Pro Palestinian encampments harassing Jews and Churches being burned down.
No one would be complaining if the law was equally enforced, unfortunately it isn't and it very much depends on the local politics. People get upset when they feel like certain groups are granted privileges for breaking the law whilst dissenting voices not so much.
That's how society works. Except law enforcement filters out the craze below certain thresholds. Past that threshold, disruptive protests becomes referendums on changing norms. A cause with sufficient support to sustain disruptive protest in face of maximum state power corners power into political change to establish new normal where discontentment/disruption is again below threshold of law enforcement. When multple crazes compete, the more disruptive/sustaining one wins out according to local conditions, that's why tribes/interests/policies break down by geography - when some faction of crazies win the disruption game and carve out their own little bubbles. While it's nice to settle things with debate/voting/process, but such system is easily rigged, and ultimately it's the 2nd derivative expression of violence, the source of power. At some point people will chose to fight power with power.
OK, fine, but you also don't get to decide how other people interpret your actions. You can fuss and bother about how trivial it is to you that someone's commute got delayed by 10 minutes, but if you're pissing off the person you're trying to get your message to, you're still shooting yourself in the foot.
Persuasion is contextual; you don't get to dictate someone else's feelings and you don't get to force them to see things your way.
If protests go too far, to the point where the general public will cheer for anyone putting the protesters in jail for a decade, the protest is going to be ineffective.
There’s first of all the point that the sibling comment made (bongodongobob). There’s also the second point of solidarity. Now for those who are too politically liberal to understand that word: it’s about standing together with your fellow person based on some commonality, knowing/trusting that they will also have your back in other contexts. Which could translate to bearing some discomfort because you sympathize with their cause or think that their cause is proximal to your own (see: first they came for X but I didn’t do anything because I’m not X).
This can be seen even in my social democratic country when there is some large strike. Say airport workers. Then the media will immediately be on the prowl, asking leading questions to would-be vacationers about how horrible this strike must be. The more solidaristic ones may choose to bear that burden because they feel that they share a common cause.
>yon't get to dictate someone else's feelings and you don't get to force them to see things your way
No, but you can certainly try to inconvenience them until they take action, whether that means pressuring government to capitulate or crackdown. Disruptive protests tend to already assumes it swayed enough minds to go disruptive, the ultimate goal is not to persuade fence sitters but persuade power.
"Squeaky Wheels Get the Grease" And if they're inconveniencing you, suddenly the thing you care about is making them go away. And what's the best way to make them go away? To make your local politicians do something about them. Often times the demands are easier to capitulate to than to continue suffering the inconveniences that make your constituents upset that people are angry.
It adds pressure for those in charge to capitulate and stop the protests. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
Edit: I can't reply to the comment below this for some reason, but ok they send the police to break up protests against Walmart. Which looks absolutely terrible. "Our mayor sides with Walmart over the people." That adds to the narrative and is paradoxically possible a net positive for the protestors.
Seriously, what's the difference here? They're doing illegal protests same as like when women illegally protested. If you want to punish some students harshly, you should also support jailing Rosa Parks, no?
I'm sure that 15 years after the "strike" when they all hit voting age this may become useful information, but the politicians today are probably not thinking that far ahead.
> Said another way, it's not about you.
This seems breathtakingly silly. I'm not saying it is about me.
Maybe other people aren't already doing those things. Maybe some people saw these kids and thought, "You know, those kids are right. I should do something about that."
They a) think all protesting is the same as doing something, when actually only specific protesting does something, and b) aren't learning something real that would help them become better at really helping with this issue one day.
I’m sure there are reasons. But the ones I can think of (tele-support, tele-morale?), well I don’t buy them.
Protest is not always about immediately having your demands met. It's nearly always part of a longer game. And if you're a 16 year old who has no financial leverage, no job to strike from, no company to make different decisions with, and who won't be able to vote for another 2 years, raising an issue with the people that can doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
Besides, these protests got younger generations' voices into mainstream TV and newspapers. That's more than "appropriate" protest ever did.
I'm talking about "strikes" that were 7-year-olds. Junior schools were striking.
> That's more than "appropriate" protest ever did.
I don't care about appropriate; just about effectiveness.
You're really making a contribution with this comment. /s
The right to protest ends once it interferes with others' freedoms.
Oh shit! Is it? Can I finally arrest tourists for walking slowly in my city? They bother me way more than the occasional protest does (less than once a month, while tourists are in my way every day I go outside)!
I’ll have a double of whatever a person demonstrating this lack of compassion is protesting.
* Wife in labor, need to get to the hospital. Stuck in traffic for hours. Mom and/or baby die. * Job interview, been unemployed for 8 months, late, stuck in traffic for hours. No job. * Ambulance trying to rush a patient in critical condition to hospital. Stuck in traffic. Dead. * Trying to pick kid up from daycare. Hours late, huge fee, kicked out of daycare, possibly lose job.
I can keep going.
Let us assume for a second that all the above scenarios are people who are neutral to the cause of the protest. Now they hate the cause of the protest, along with all of the people who felt second-order effects from the "inconvenienced" people.
"Inconveniencing people" is such an arrogant, selfish, self-centered way to view a protest that can have lasting consequences. Accepting that at collateral damage is, frankly, bullshit.
I can’t help you if you get enraged by hypothetical scenarios.
> "I'm gonna try to get through," Scott said. "My daughter needs me. She's got four little ones there and I'm supposed to be helping take care of them while she's working."
> "Our poor Uber driver," said Brianna & Brienne, two passengers visiting from out of town.
I have not and I will not complain about people complaining about real inconveniences when they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time through no fault of their own.
And all of this doesn’t change the fact that protests should not be discouraged or be made unlawful (although apparently according to that state trooper it already is) considering that protesters have quite important things that they are protesting themselves, according to their own thinking. From that link (one of the “poor Uber driver” girls):
> "Yes it's an inconvenience," Brienne added. "But it's also inconvenient to be inconvenient to a human being in Gaza right now."
I have an issue with collateral damage in the name of a cause. I meant what I said, it is arrogant to decide "my protest is more important than ANYTHING you could be doing right now, because I said so"
It's just fucked up. Protest your face off, don't stop everyone else from getting on with their day.