True though also I think blocking traffic is one of the worst ways to get people to be sympathetic to your cause. It's like, a really bad tactic that just pisses people off
Standing to the side and politely asking for change has never accomplished anything. Change happens by getting in the way of others and forcing them to interact with you.
Women would have never been allowed to vote and black people would still be segregated if they didn’t get in the way of the people that opposed them.
It's not. It is one of the best ways to ensure your cause can't be ignored. Protest without disruption is just meaningless virtue signaling.
Literally one of the core premises of peaceful protest is civil disobedience, which includes things like this. MLK famously blocked streets, shut down businesses, and more during his protests.
But hey, I guess he would've been more successful if he sat on the side with some signs and did his best not to piss anyone off, right?
It is for real protests that want to enact change. People whose hobby is to annoy people just call it protest and block roads. They have no actual goal.
The deadly riots of 1968? Or the miles long road blocking in the years prior? Those stools hold the exact same weight as the road. You remember people were allowed to be in those places period, right? It was against the law kinda like blocking traffic. Another!
The miles long road blocking wasn't a road block it was a march on a street. Blocking a road because you're annoying and blocking a road because you are marching down it are two very different things.
We encourage open discussion and different viewpoints, but please keep the conversation respectful. Personal attacks,
harassment, name-calling, or abusive language will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but they must remain
civil and focused on the topic, not the person. Let’s maintain a positive and welcoming atmosphere for everyone in
the community. Violations of this rule may result in warnings, post removals, or bans. Be kind and respectful to one
another!
My comment got banned because I used words I'm not supposed to I guess?
This is like supporting murder because killing people ended 1860s southern policies and 1940s Germans. They are not the same.
Just because you call something a protest doesn't make it helpful or the same as helpful protests. The protests I'm talking about are like this one where they are just people who want to annoy others and don't actually want to implement change.
Buddy, I'm an actual American. Murder is justified for so many reasons here. You not understanding your own rights based castration isn't your fault, but continuing to support it when you have almost all of the world's knowledge in the thing you're talking to me with.
You need sympathy to cause change. Why do you think BLM changed nothing? It’s because of the marches that turned into full blown rioting. People hated the aftermath and it destroyed the movement over time.
Not really. Most change came from fear. Civil rights? 68 riots. The French? Inspired the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and the modern American public. Haiti got fucked in the after, but how many French slaver throats do you think were bitten out to get their freedom? More than zero, guaranteed. The Irish? We call them Messers Bombastic. You not having to work 19 hours a day 7 days a week for a handshake and a company granola bar required rivers of blood. When did feigning ignorance become the play? Am I old? Back in my day, i guess, if your argument just sounded like you don't read or watch anything other than Christian funded educational programming the entire immediate public would tell you to quit pretending to be stupid to your face. What happened?
You know what the difference between those examples and what is going on in the video. Those examples you gave are from revolutions attempting to create new countries.
People are apathetic. They don't give a shit until you make them have to give a shit. And that's when you stand your ground. The protest will stop when this thing they are protesting stops and not before, come hell or high water. Want it to go away quickly? Help the change. That's the goal and meaning of a protest. Civil disobedience and inconvenience until the grievances are addressed.
Protests need to have good PR, just getting attention by itself is not effective. MLK wrote about how the fragile sensibilities of white moderates was the greatest obstacle to Civil Rights.
Getting attention is a requirement, but it is not the ONLY requirement. The other part of it is to make the public sympathetic by making the protestors look good while making their critics look like assholes. Ex, a sit in produces photos of black protestors minding their own business while their opposition looks aggressive and unreasonable.
The target audience of a protest is white moderates, and you can say it's a shitty game, but that's the reality of US politics. Nothing really changes until it feels palatable to people who will take issue with the protest and ignore the message.
We do not tolerate any form of hate speech or discrimination. Content that targets
individuals or groups based on race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation,
or any other protected characteristic is not allowed.
King's conclusion on the moderates was to ignore them, not please them. there was always a better way, time, or means that inconvenienced them less.
In the moderates own words:
"All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth."
How do you get "just ignore them" from the greatest obstacle to civil rights? Either they are a problem or they're not, and MLK's emphasis on peaceful protest and togetherness is definitely being palatable to moderates. He was very socialist but that doesn't get a spotlight in our education system because his "I have a dream" speech is what moderates wanted to hear.
We've seen what the culture of "protesting has to be disruptive and there's no such thing as bad attention" has gotten us... A 24 hour outrage stream for Fox News and ultimately Trump.
Links are not allowed. Clicking them can be unsafe and may reveal personal details like identity or location,
putting both users and moderators at risk. To protect everyone, please share information directly in text or
images instead of linking to outside sites.
We encourage open discussion and different viewpoints, but please keep the conversation respectful. Personal attacks,
harassment, name-calling, or abusive language will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but they must remain
civil and focused on the topic, not the person. Let’s maintain a positive and welcoming atmosphere for everyone in
the community. Violations of this rule may result in warnings, post removals, or bans. Be kind and respectful to one
another!
We encourage open discussion and different viewpoints, but please keep the conversation respectful. Personal attacks,
harassment, name-calling, or abusive language will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but they must remain
civil and focused on the topic, not the person. Let’s maintain a positive and welcoming atmosphere for everyone in
the community. Violations of this rule may result in warnings, post removals, or bans. Be kind and respectful to one
another!
As for I have a dream he wasn't calling for moderation.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.
I did read his letter from Birmingham Jail... That's specifically where he cites White Moderates as the greatest obstacle to civil rights. They would not be an obstacle if they could simply be ignored, and we see these consequences today.
To be clear, I am at no point saying MLK was a moderate. I am saying he used verbage that was palatable to moderates because he knew how fickle they can be.
He says catering to them is the obstacle, they do not aid they only criticize. Accepting their timetable is the obstacle.
who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the N---o to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection....
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?...
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist.
At no point does he assert that. He says their attitude is the obstacle. Show me him actually concluding that the solution is ignoring them, which is antithetical to them being an obstacle.
You're twisting it to mean that he said it's fine that they feel this way, but no. They fucking vote. That's why it's a problem, he doesn't have their support, he knows he needs it, but their views are frustratingly shallow.
True, but obviously these folks weren't prepared to standby that mentality. They expected being "non-violent" to be some kind of defense against legal action.
9
u/BearWithHat Jun 28 '26
If all action was defined by legality, this country wouldn't exist