You don’t understand. That protest provoked an emotional reaction in me and I didn’t like it. Responsible protests don’t hurt people’s feelings. They went too far.
I’m sure all the equal rights protests MLK orchestrated were highly accepted by the moderates and racists across the country and didnt hurt their feelings at all
Oh wait, protest arent about your feelings but instead are about making critical changes in infrastructure and society
Hatred and violence are not things protests are meant to inspire. But changing how you feel about an issue is exactly what they are meant to do
How naive. True change doesn’t come from offending moderates - true change comes from making moderates comfortable, so they feel secure and confident that the change you won’t harm them. Any protest that makes people uncomfortable about society or their own actions is counterproductive and just makes things worse.
Take Colin Kaepernick. Taking a knee during the national anthem before a football game was exactly the wrong way to protest racism, because it angered people who loved football and loved America, who should have been his natural allies. What Colin should have done was been even more patriotic and sung the anthem even louder, to express how much he loved America and how he wanted to see it become better. That would have inspired people who supported his cause, without offending people who disagreed with him, and there would have been no controversy.
That’s the way white moderates want to see people protest. Being conformist and forgettable is how we make change.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but you’re actually partially right.
A successful protest reaches people outside of a cause, compelling them to learn more, in hopes that they ultimately become a supporter.
Performative radicalized protests are only compelling to those already behind the cause, and immediately discredited by those you need to reach. It may actually drive resentment for the cause in the people who were planning to see Stonehenge that day.
A successful protest reaches people outside of a cause, compelling them to learn more, in hopes that they ultimately become a supporter.
Performative radicalized protests are only compelling to those already behind the cause, and immediately discredited by those you need to reach.
That’s not how any of this works.
A protests’ success is judged by how much publicity it receives, and the disproportionate scale of the reaction from antagonists to the movement. Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem was a successful protest because he was a public figure and had a national stage, and the reaction of conservatives throwing fits over a symbolic gesture highlighted the racism typically hidden in polite white society. The police riot in Selma got national attention because of the graphic scenes of white police beating black folks in Sunday dress, and the scale of the police response to people engaging in peaceful protest revealed the violence inherent in Jim Crow apartheid.
Likewise, the Stonehenge protest was extremely successful because it received international attention, and the disproportionate outrage over harmless dust compared to the real threat of climate change puts a spotlight to the widespread apathy of society to the threat.
You think protests are supposed to reach you specifically, because you’re sympathetic to the protests old enough to read about in history books. But your opinion of those protests is mediated by the society that those protests have already successfully altered. The moderate of the past would have considered those historical protests ‘performative’ and ‘radicalized’ as well. They would also be on the wrong side of history.
You’re welcome to do it in their stead. I’ll happily wait for confirmation that you’ve done the thing you want others to do but aren’t willing to do yourself.
You don’t understand. That protest provoked an emotional reaction in me and I didn’t like it. Responsible protests don’t hurt people’s feelings. They went too far.
I’m sure all the equal rights protests MLK orchestrated were highly accepted by the moderates and racists across the country and didnt hurt their feelings at all
Oh wait, protest arent about your feelings but instead are about making critical changes in infrastructure and society
Hatred and violence are not things protests are meant to inspire. But changing how you feel about an issue is exactly what they are meant to do
How naive. True change doesn’t come from offending moderates - true change comes from making moderates comfortable, so they feel secure and confident that the change you won’t harm them. Any protest that makes people uncomfortable about society or their own actions is counterproductive and just makes things worse.
Take Colin Kaepernick. Taking a knee during the national anthem before a football game was exactly the wrong way to protest racism, because it angered people who loved football and loved America, who should have been his natural allies. What Colin should have done was been even more patriotic and sung the anthem even louder, to express how much he loved America and how he wanted to see it become better. That would have inspired people who supported his cause, without offending people who disagreed with him, and there would have been no controversy.
That’s the way white moderates want to see people protest. Being conformist and forgettable is how we make change.
Am I still being too subtle?
LOL I think you’re fine, people need to unlearn needing an /s tag
This is a solid example of Poe’s Law.
If we just lick those boots hard enough…
Yeah I get this is /s but it doesn’t really convey over text
Dont feed the trolls
deleted by creator
I know you’re being sarcastic, but you’re actually partially right.
A successful protest reaches people outside of a cause, compelling them to learn more, in hopes that they ultimately become a supporter.
Performative radicalized protests are only compelling to those already behind the cause, and immediately discredited by those you need to reach. It may actually drive resentment for the cause in the people who were planning to see Stonehenge that day.
That’s not how any of this works.
A protests’ success is judged by how much publicity it receives, and the disproportionate scale of the reaction from antagonists to the movement. Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem was a successful protest because he was a public figure and had a national stage, and the reaction of conservatives throwing fits over a symbolic gesture highlighted the racism typically hidden in polite white society. The police riot in Selma got national attention because of the graphic scenes of white police beating black folks in Sunday dress, and the scale of the police response to people engaging in peaceful protest revealed the violence inherent in Jim Crow apartheid.
Likewise, the Stonehenge protest was extremely successful because it received international attention, and the disproportionate outrage over harmless dust compared to the real threat of climate change puts a spotlight to the widespread apathy of society to the threat.
You think protests are supposed to reach you specifically, because you’re sympathetic to the protests old enough to read about in history books. But your opinion of those protests is mediated by the society that those protests have already successfully altered. The moderate of the past would have considered those historical protests ‘performative’ and ‘radicalized’ as well. They would also be on the wrong side of history.
Go spray permanent paint on the homes of the CEO’S who actually destroy the environment. Then, I’ll cheer.
You’re welcome to do it in their stead. I’ll happily wait for confirmation that you’ve done the thing you want others to do but aren’t willing to do yourself.
You won’t even hear about it!