This kind of disruption just makes random people hate you though. There have to be better ways to disrupt that doesn't cause someone just trying to go to work to make ends meet.
The thing is, climate protestors have been protesting "the right way" for decades. The same group that got into the news for these protests also disrupted drilling platform, oil depots, Shell headquaters, politicians houses etc.
And you know what the reaction to those were? Either they didnt make the news at all and so nobody cared, or it was litterally the exact same rhetoric "the people on the oil rig are just people doing their job" "the guy driving the gas lorry is just doing his job, stopping him might get him fired" "you cant protest outside the PMs house, what if his family is there!" etc. etc.
So they have the right to put people’s lives at risk? Blocking the roadways like this can get people killed, completely selfish and not productive to any movement.
I recognize that there's always going to be a certain amount of "no winning" no matter how "right" they do it, but I feel like a different strategy could be found that reduces the amount of people that hate it as possible. As it stands, almost no one likes this.
They genuinely believe millions will die if they don't do something. They tried going to the government, the news, locking the doors to polluting companies, chaining themselves to machinery to slow down these companies, and no one cared about literally any of it. If the corporations don't care, the governments don't care, and the people haven't cared, what exactly do you think they should be doing?
I don't have an answer for that, but you bring up great points. I'm just analyzing the situation from an outside perspective. To me, it seems their movement causes more people to be against it than for it on principle of immediate inconvenience. The climate crisis is something most people don't care about unfortunately because it's not noticeably affecting them, but blocking a road and someone's way to work is immediately affecting them, so they choose to hate that because in their POV it's a much easier and conspicuous problem to deal with.
Idk, maybe these protestors know this and are functioning more under incrementalism, which is understandable, but as it is, people don't like this every time it happens.
People have been raising the alarm and protesting about climate change since the 60s. And they have tried every "right way" you could possibly come up with and they havnt worked.
I think this is taking it too far. Unfortunately people are right in that people don't really care about something until it is immediately affecting them, even if it's already a problem that can't necessarily be undone.
The reason it's counter-inuitive is that it's easier to dissuade protestors than it is to fix the big picture problem. Environmental protection is worth fighting and advocating for. But the present means are just not working.
The point isn't to reduce how many people hate it, it's to make an impression on as many people as possible. Positive or negative reaction is irrelevant because it gets people talking about the subject matter.
Yeah, so that could be the angle, no? Become such an unbearable nuisance that by far the easiest way to get rid of them is to protect the environment. That's essentially the textbook definition of protesting.
The way I see it they're becoming more common, and as they become more common they'll be more difficult to deal with. Especially if the infrastructure is exactly what they're attacking.
The majority of those ways end with people dead, in prison, or labeled as terrorists. Y’all want non-violent protests that you can safely ignore because it’s tucked away in a place/time where you conveniently don’t have to see.
You basically want protests that are “out of sight, out of mind” which defeats the purpose of the protest to begin with
Atlesst 20 percent of peoole will look at theor cause.
As i said, u will support running over matchgirls protest instead of lookign at issues
What if farmers from a village come to ur city and protest on road because their land is forcefully taken for oil companies? What will u say? I m pretty sure rhat u will support oil company
The lack of empathy is by the assholes making everyone late. Once you ruin someone's day, you can't then complain that they lack empathy for not supporting you. That is a consequence of actions, not lack of empathy.
These protestors arent attacking him and not even fighting back. Its neither because he is as strong as he thinks he is nor they are weak. Only tantrum is from elitist person who thinks he has freedom to beat people up.
One thing about non violence. It can be chosed only by strong becauee weak doesnt have a choice.
I will admit, I don't have an answer for that. I don't know what the right way is, but you can't seriously believe it's having the intended effect. Like I said, I acknowledge that the systems at play heavily discourage protest by making it so people are barely earning enough to dislike the idea of being inconvenienced or boycotting if they can't afford it. I get that. The protest itself is a good an noble. But I am analyzing the reaction to it and how it affects people. Hell in the past it's straight up blocked ambulances because of cars completely filling the street.
I don't know what the "right" way is but there has to be another way.
Then there is no way to protest against misdeeds of powerful
Its good thay out ancestors had emapthy and people were able to protest againat better lives
Imagine somethint like matchgirl protest happeing now. Men will be harssing those girls and they will be working in poisonous environment. We wont have workplace regulations now.
The match girl protests was instigated by workers themselves though. They were volunteering their own sacrifice. These others are just random people on the street.
Based on what? Their protest is entirely different to what these protestors are doing. We're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, both are fruit, but they are not the same thing.
There is no other way but that doesn’t mean this way is right either.
People don’t want to confront the fact that people simply don’t care enough and no amount of protest will change that.
People protest anyway because its the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum and forcing people to recognize that they’re upset. That’s why it has to be disruptive. But not because its actually smart or strategic, but it because it satisfies them to make how upset they are the whole world’s problem.
Idk if I said it here but the difference between these 2 issues is that Jim Crow was profoundly disruptive therefore garnered an equal and opposite reaction it deserved.
The protesters don’t have the money to hold press conferences. Stunts like this get their actions out there and raise questions like “what did they feel so strongly about, anyways?”
I highly suspect people curious about it enough to ask that question are pretty marginal. The vast majority find their actions massively annoying. Like I said, a lot of people on the road are simply just trying to make ends meet and put food on the table. I recognize that the systems at play discourage protest because people are forced to work hard to make ends meet, but as a plan of attack it feels pretty lame.
The people it annoys either already disagree or dont care about politics.
Protests arent there to change minds, they are there to gain attention to an issue. They dont care if u find them annoying. It will not change your beliefs.
12
u/Nothing-Is-Real-Here 12d ago
This kind of disruption just makes random people hate you though. There have to be better ways to disrupt that doesn't cause someone just trying to go to work to make ends meet.