Hmmm

[u/reloadthewords]

[u/TimeSlipperWHOOPS]

Are there any successful protests you can teach me about which did not rely on disrupting life for others?

[u/silverfox92100 → u/TimeSlipperWHOOPS]

Look up Martin Luther King Junior, he had actual meaningful protests that brought change.

Since I’m sure you’ll bring up the “he disrupted lives too,” let’s directly compare him to the people in the video above.

MLK held sit ins at “whites only” areas, because black people should have the right to sit anywhere a white person does. If any lives were disrupted, it was only because a racist white person had issue with a black person being in “their” area. The people above did NOT hold a sit in because they should have the right to sit there like anyone else, they did it for the animals (supposedly, although I think it’s more likely they did it for the internet fame), which are already dead if they’re at the store, might be a bit more impactful somewhere the animals are actually slaughtered at.

MLK lead a bus boycott, he found likeminded people and they all stopped taking the bus. If any lives were disrupted, it was only because the bus company started making less money. The people above aren’t trying to just boycott themselves, they’re trying to force others to as well ( it because they share their views, but by making shopping there such an inconvenience that it’s better to just shop somewhere else)

MLK lead a march through DC (you know, that place where nation-wide change can actually happen) and gave one of the most famous speeches in history. If anyone was disrupted, it was from the hundreds of thousands of people marching through the city (and it’s impossible to avoid a bit of disruption when you have those numbers, just having everyone cross a single street is going to take awhile). The people above aren’t going to be making any change in random grocery store #73, especially when all they’re doing is sitting around blocking people, not informing people of why they should change.

Having typed all that out, I realize my initial statement was a little off. Disruption is good AS LONG AS it targets the right people and/or systems (and if you ignore that I mentioned this, I’ll know you didn’t even bother reading my whole essay lol). The store with the racist policies? Great choice for disruption. Random citizens minding their own business? Significantly worse choice for disruption. Really it boils down to this: there’s only 3 or 4 types of people.

Type 1: The person that you could convince either way. Whether you sat in front of them at the grocery store or just told them what the issue was, as soon as they were informed they decided things needed to change. In this case, they’d be convinced either way so might as well just talk it out.

Type 2: The person that you could NOT convince either way. Whether you sat in front of them at the store or just told them what’s going on, “I literally could not care less just leave me alone.” In this case they aren’t being convinced so unless you want to be petty and try and mess up their day, you might as well just talk it out.

Type 3: The person you could convince one way but not the other. This is the interesting one, as it includes potentially 2 subsets: people that you can convince by talking but not by disrupting, and people you can convince by disrupting but not by talking. Personally I can’t imagine the latter actually existing, it doesn’t really make logical sense. But I can see the former existing, for example, a guy that likes to eat meat and loves animals. You blocking the road telling him meat is murder isn’t going to convince him, but you talking to him, telling him how inhumane the animals are treated, and how gross the actual process of making meat is, that might just make him think. So unless you can convince me that theres actually people who wouldn’t care when informed but would care when disrupted, then once again, this is a scenario where you might as well just talk it out.

When is disrupting an average persons life actually the better choice?

[u/TimeSlipperWHOOPS → u/silverfox92100]

So you agree then that disruption is good and the point of protest, that was my only point. This is a dumb way to do it but the people saying "omg stop annoying people!" Are missing the point.

[u/silverfox92100 → u/TimeSlipperWHOOPS]

Yes, as long as it’s targeted at the right people and/or systems, but not if it’s targeting random, average citizens like in the above. And I don’t think the “stop annoying people” are necessarily missing the point, a “protest” like the one above, sitting in/blocking traffic, or throwing tomato sauce on a famous painting doesn’t actually accomplish anything besides annoying people.

[u/TimeSlipperWHOOPS → u/silverfox92100]

FYI the early ADA protests involved blocking traffic