Do you not remember the protests for civil rights? The sit ins? The marches? The protests outside the white house?
Literally every part of what is protesting is based on disrupting everything for the average citizen so the govt is forced to make a change.
The point of protesting is to force action without violence. People blocking traffic or stopping people from entering certain businesses is exactly what protesting is.
Protesting isn't just rallies where people come together to talk about what they all agree on. It's actively forcing people to acknowledge the issue without resorting to violence.
Edit: I didn't see this was a UK post which is my bad but it's still relevant
Do you not remember the protests for civil rights? The sit ins? The marches? The protests outside the white house?
No? I'm from the UK, as is the subject of this article, why would we remember what happened in some other country? I'm also a millennial, would I even remember the protests for civil rights in your country if I had been from there?
Just food for thought is all, you have a point of course :-)
I'm from the UK. Also a millennial. Being ignorant about defining moments in world history can't be pinned on either of those things.
The suffragettes were pretty disruptive, even the peaceful ones. The bombing suffragettes were extremely disruptive.
Yeah I heard women had to be escorted into galleries because they kept slicing up paintings 😆
Ultimately the Suffragists ended up having more of an impact on getting women the vote than the Suffragettes.
Yeah I realized after I made the comment that this was based in the UK. That's my bad. I don't really have an excuse lmao
The commenter is being needlessly pedantic like they aren't aware of the Civil Rights Movement at all. Even assuming they weren't one of the people that studied it, the USA's Civil Rights Movement is a common topic of study in history curricula in the UK because it has a significant cultural impact and is an excellent study of protest, the importance of civil rights, racial tensions, and context of the USA which is a dominant presence across the world.
The Civil Rights Movement had an incredibly low popular support before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Protests are meant to disrupt. No progress is made unless you have a moderate and an extreme movement. That way the status quo compromises to the moderates to prevent the extreme from gaining ground.
So frankly, Just Stop Oil is too gentle. We won't see change until people get extreme on their protests against fossil fuels.
The USA is a special case though, they refuse to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
More civilized countries will enact change long before this.
Lmao, I can imagine what you think of France then
France is the reason change usually happens before things get violent.
I do hate the French, but not for that reason.
I think you should look up the history of the guillotine.
You do understand I'm agreeing with you, right? I'm well aware of what a guillotine was used for.
Then your point doesn't make sense. You're calling the US uncivilised for resorting to violence, but not the French who we are talking about historically resorting to violence? And also this is why others don't resort to violence when civilised (by your standards) because they are afraid of guillotines? IDGI.
The French went after the actual people in power, first of all, and they've learned from their past mistakes.
But their contemporary protests have been just as disruptive if not more disruptive than people slowly walking and causing traffic issues
For sure, the Yellow Vests literally blockaded roads and fuel depots across the whole of France.
every country refuses to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
Sorry, but that's simply wrong. There's plenty of countries that change with the times.
Like when?
New Zealand have enacted women's suffrage, gay marriage, and decriminanalising abortion with no violence at all, simply because the government of the time listened to the people.
How did the anti-suffragettes, homophobes and pro-forced-birthers react?
Do you not remember the protests for civil rights? The sit ins? The marches? The protests outside the white house?
Literally every part of what is protesting is based on disrupting everything for the average citizen so the govt is forced to make a change.
The point of protesting is to force action without violence. People blocking traffic or stopping people from entering certain businesses is exactly what protesting is.
Protesting isn't just rallies where people come together to talk about what they all agree on. It's actively forcing people to acknowledge the issue without resorting to violence.
Edit: I didn't see this was a UK post which is my bad but it's still relevant
No? I'm from the UK, as is the subject of this article, why would we remember what happened in some other country? I'm also a millennial, would I even remember the protests for civil rights in your country if I had been from there?
Just food for thought is all, you have a point of course :-)
I'm from the UK. Also a millennial. Being ignorant about defining moments in world history can't be pinned on either of those things.
The suffragettes were pretty disruptive, even the peaceful ones. The bombing suffragettes were extremely disruptive.
Yeah I heard women had to be escorted into galleries because they kept slicing up paintings 😆
Ultimately the Suffragists ended up having more of an impact on getting women the vote than the Suffragettes.
Yeah I realized after I made the comment that this was based in the UK. That's my bad. I don't really have an excuse lmao
The commenter is being needlessly pedantic like they aren't aware of the Civil Rights Movement at all. Even assuming they weren't one of the people that studied it, the USA's Civil Rights Movement is a common topic of study in history curricula in the UK because it has a significant cultural impact and is an excellent study of protest, the importance of civil rights, racial tensions, and context of the USA which is a dominant presence across the world.
The Civil Rights Movement had an incredibly low popular support before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Protests are meant to disrupt. No progress is made unless you have a moderate and an extreme movement. That way the status quo compromises to the moderates to prevent the extreme from gaining ground.
So frankly, Just Stop Oil is too gentle. We won't see change until people get extreme on their protests against fossil fuels.
The USA is a special case though, they refuse to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
More civilized countries will enact change long before this.
Lmao, I can imagine what you think of France then
France is the reason change usually happens before things get violent.
I do hate the French, but not for that reason.
I think you should look up the history of the guillotine.
You do understand I'm agreeing with you, right? I'm well aware of what a guillotine was used for.
Then your point doesn't make sense. You're calling the US uncivilised for resorting to violence, but not the French who we are talking about historically resorting to violence? And also this is why others don't resort to violence when civilised (by your standards) because they are afraid of guillotines? IDGI.
The French went after the actual people in power, first of all, and they've learned from their past mistakes.
But their contemporary protests have been just as disruptive if not more disruptive than people slowly walking and causing traffic issues
For sure, the Yellow Vests literally blockaded roads and fuel depots across the whole of France.
Or, you know, anyone who wanted a bit more revolution than them.
I'm sure I will regret asking this but why?
They sunk the rainbow warrior.
Just generally being arrogant twats.
Please stop, your embarrassing us.
You sound dumb as shit.
every country refuses to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
Sorry, but that's simply wrong. There's plenty of countries that change with the times.
Like when?
New Zealand have enacted women's suffrage, gay marriage, and decriminanalising abortion with no violence at all, simply because the government of the time listened to the people.
How did the anti-suffragettes, homophobes and pro-forced-birthers react?
Huffed, puffed, moaned, and wrung their hands.