Hacker News Reader

Comment by robertlagrant | Hacker News Reader

It's absurd when it doesn't inconvenience anyone who can do what the protest is about. It's like when UK schoolkids "went on strike for the planet". No one who could've done anything was bothered, and no one who could do something about it in the future was educated.

View on HN

Yet here you are, talking about their action 6 years later. Maybe it was more impactful than you're giving it credit for?

I assume this is parody, but just in case it's not: I am not someone who can do something about this, other than what I'm already doing. A schoolchild "going on strike" is not anything. Other than a less educated schoolchild.

Good thing you're not the single person who became aware of the climate strike! I suspect many of the politicians who can actually influence things also remember the massive school strikes. Many protests are designed to raise awareness in addition to the 'stretch goal' of achieving direct results - so demonstrating that hundreds of thousands of school kids are this focused on the topic is a pretty good outcome even if some of the random people who were vaguely aware of the strikes can't do anything to help their demands. Said another way, it's not about you.

> so demonstrating that hundreds of thousands of school kids are this focused on the topic is a pretty good outcome

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.

> I assume this is parody, but just in case it's not: I am not someone who can do something about this, other than what I'm already doing.

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."

Maybe anything, yeah. Maybe not.

Maybe it's easier to just be cynical, eh?

It's equally easy to be naive or cynical.

Are they talking about it "the right way" though? I think there's a hidden cost to associate your cause with negativity, even if it will be remembered.

What in the world could possibly be negative about school kids walking out of school in protest for two or three days? The 'tone policing' of other people's direct action is so tiresome.

> What in the world could possibly be negative about school kids walking out of school in protest for two or three days?

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.

Because "literally all the adult population" can't, as you seem to imply, do anything about it?

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.

> And if you're a 16 year old

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.

Genuinely: what do you know about effective protesting? Are you speaking from experience as a successful organizer who got legislation passed or local policies reformed due to your activism? Do you have sociological papers on the phenomenon maybe, are you a journalist who investigates this? Your criticisms would have more weight if I had a better idea from which the experience you had to make these criticisms.

This is called "ad hominem". Make a counterargument, rather than attacking the person.

Asking for one's credentials on a topic before assessing their claims is not ad hominem.

I genuinely want to know their experience in organizing to get better context as to their expertise. They are the one making claims about what works and doesn't work. I don't know jack shit about organizing, so I'd like to know if I should take their opinion as an educated one or a layman.

Think of it this way. Say a group of people are protesting a Walmart being built in their downtown district. People are out in the streets, traffic is jammed up, and "people who can't do anything about it" get pissed off. Commuters are mad, the local businesses are mad. So these people "who can't do anything about it" call their alderman, mayor, whatever "You need to do something about these protests, it's affecting my business/commute".

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.

I don't think that's what's been happening. The protestors have been so annoying, blocking amubulances, etc, that they are definitely making their causes look bad. And on video.

Disruption is the point. I'll have to bow out of this conversation as I am not able to understand those who don't get this.

You aren’t entitled to break the law, steal from others, hold them hostage on highways, etc just because your view is not popular. That’s what illegal protests / riots are - people who are so entitled that they think they’re allowed to do whatever they want until they get their way. That’s not acceptable in a civil society and they should face harsh consequences for it.

Do you disagree with the illegal marches and blocking of traffic during the protests to grant black people and women the right to vote in the united states? Should women who illegally march for the right to vote be "harshly" consequenced?

This is a false equivalence. Those same groups have the same rights today as others, and can push for change within the bounds of our law. In the past they couldn’t vote, but that’s not the case now. Likewise people protesting Israel-Palestine or Trump or whatever have ways to share ideas, influence, vote, and legally protest. If they aren’t getting what they want, it is because their ideas are unpopular and they need to accept that. They aren’t entitled to an audience and aren’t entitled to breaking the law just because they didn’t get their way.

In order to gain these rights, women and black people illegally protested. Famously, a black woman didn't agree to be moved to the back of the bus during racial segregation-- illegally, of course! How harshly should Rosa Parks have been consequenced?

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?

Oh - I see. It's extremely easy. Disrupting people who can't do anything about it in a way that turns the focus on you being the problem, not politicians, will mean that politicians will not be affected by the disruption.

No, they complain to the politicians. Then they have to decide whether or not they beat the shit out of people with police or grant their wish. Protests are not about gaining allies, they are strictly about disruption.

In reality they just send more cops / more funding for cops.

There are ineffective protests. Like protesting the Russian invasion in a Nato country. What for?

I’m sure there are reasons. But the ones I can think of (tele-support, tele-morale?), well I don’t buy them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com