Solidarity denotes the unity and mutual support among individuals with shared objectives, crucial in protests for reinforcing collective resolve. Protests are strategically held in high-visibility, disruptive locations to maximize impact and draw public and institutional attention. This disruption compels acknowledgment of the issues, leveraging collective action to catalyze societal and political change. In contrast, low-visibility protests are often ineffective as they fail to generate sufficient public awareness or pressure for change.
I have no problem against high-visibility locations.
But for the love of God,
Just don't be IN the way.
Not only you're endangering yourself, you're also being annoying af. People still have things to do.
Protests are only effective if they are disruptive, not just visible.
Doesn't sound very peaceful and legal.
If you really love high visibility disruptive locations, make sure you don't end up highly visible and disrupted on my windshield.
Bombing things until they got the right to vote wasn't peaceful or legal when the suffragettes did it. If asking politely didn't work, there's no reason to think that asking politely but in a different place will fare any better.
So you're going to fight genocides and promote peace with bombs and killing people?
Makes no sense. You're insane, bro.
That worked pretty effectively in the 1940s, whereas asking the Nazis politely not to invade Poland was completely useless.
True, sometimes, you have to fight fire against fire.
But it should be the last option.
I think peace and diplomacy should always be the priority in any situation.
Why would anyone change anything for peaceful and legal protests? Significant change only happens because it is disruptive.
Go ask Mahatma Gandhi.
You mean a leader of deeply disruptive and illegal protest movements?
He was disobedient in a passive, nonviolent, civil and ethical way.
He was not, he was disobedient in a wildly disruptive and active manner.
Study any civil movement in history and you'll see that it change happened because of disruption.
Go study him then. You might learn a few things.
It's the opposite, you have no idea why change happens and think it's out of the good will of the state.
The only way to change the outside world is by changing yourself internally.
Gandhi actually said it himself with ths famous quote: "Be the change you wish to see in the world"
If you think individuals asking the ruling class to be nicer is how Civil Movements have progressed, you are deeply unserious and an idealist. You change the world through action.
That's true.
And where do every action come from?
From yourself and your own mind.
Sure. That doesn't mean thinking about change will get anything done. Politely asking for change will not get it, never has.
Change your thinking -> Change your action -> Change the world
We disagree on the "change the world" step significantly. I believe you have to do things to change the world, you believe thinking itself to change the world.
You're an idealist, a deeply unserious one at that.
No, I believe that by thinking differently, you can change the actions that you take.
By doing so, it changes the world.
How else can you change a behavior?
If you're an alcoholic and want to stop, the first step is to think about stoping and create an environement without alcohol. Then you take the actions.
If you want to do a protest, you first have to think about creating a protest in the world, then you take the necessary actions.
I believe this very seriously.
You're completely missing the point. By your standard, the idea creates the change, asking the ruling class to be nicer creates change. This is nonsense.
Change comes from actions. A change in material conditions. Protesters get nothing from just being loud, they must actually be disruptive to force change.
Forcing change is tyranical and will be short-lived.
Nobody likes being forced to do something. If you do, you will obviously meet resistance.
For any positive long-lasting effect, you must persuade the ruling class to be nicer.
Ideally, the idea should come from them. Not you.
Instead of forcing change, simply allow them to change by themselves.
Forcing the ruling class is the only way to get them to change anything.
You cannot persuade the ruling class to be nicer. They will always act in their material interests, with no regard for morality.
You are nearly a solipsist.
Maybe I am.
I think most people believe only hard power exists. Coercion. Force. Strength. Control. Etc.
I'm not denying it.
All I'm saying is that there is also power in patience, softness, morality, cooperation, etc.
Virtues are nice, but they haven't succeeded in getting change. Disruption and disturbance have.
I believe both can be useful in their own situations.
It seems to me that you have much to learn.
We all do, yourself especially.
Of course, I do have much things to learn.
But I've seen and dealt with people like you before.
Disruption. Change. Force. Chaos. Attention.
I get it.
I just don't feel I have much to learn here.
Peaceful protests are a myth taught to you by those in power who don't want you a protesting effectively.
Maybe, I don't protest. Most of the time, I consider them a waste of time.
I prefer focusing on things that I actually have control over.
I have no control over "those in power". Whatever that means. Just like I have no control over you. But I do vote during elections when I can.
I'm too busy building my own business, working, taking care of myself and the people that I love.
Whatever you're actually trying to achieve by protesting, I always assume there's a more effective and productive way to go about things.
"Those in power" genuinely don't give a damn about you.
They are too busy with their own lives.
You're an annoying, disruptive, incompetent and/or unproductive member of society that has nothing better to do than create problems.
Having to use violence and chaos is a reflection of your own powerlessness and inability to be productive in a positive matter.