• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Bracing for the “I’m all for their right to protest as long as they don’t disrupt anything” idiots…

    • xerazal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If it doesn’t disrupt anything, can it even really be considered a protest?

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Nope, it can’t. Good luck explaining that to the “I get that climate but inconveniencing commuters illegal” contingent, though…

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If it doesn’t disrupt anything, can it even really be considered a protest?

        Yes, it can. The goal of non-disruptive peaceful protests is sometimes just to stand up and make it clear that a significant number of people hold this view.

        Sometimes the intended audience is the protesters’ own society, but in other cases it is intended as a show of solidarity to let oppressed people know they are not forgotten.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          People are tired of wasting their time for no attention. If your cause needs attention, you don’t politely stand on the sidewalk.

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            If you want to protest disruptively that’s fine. I’m not advocating for one style over another, I’m just pointing out that both are valid forms of protest.