You can act like it doesn't work, but the Civil Rights movement had no traction until white people were inconvenienced.
There was a lot more to the success of the civil rights movement than simply blocking traffic.
Sit ins, marching in the streets, and other disruptive actions that are comparable were a significant part of it.
Not being the whole thing doesn't mean it wasn't important.
There's this weird idea that the civil rights protestors were met with people clapping and cheering and waving American flags. They were not. Those protests were wildly unpopular in their time. It was only later on, after they succeeded in getting some change, that the attitudes and rhetoric around those protests changed.
Civil rights protests were effective.
People who like the status quo do not want effective protests.
I'm well aware. I was specifically talking about the modern tactic of sit-ins in the middle of busy intersections and protestors glueing themselves to the tarmac, and so forth.
I never called into question political protest in general, even though that's apparently what people are assuming I said.
Tell me, how do you feel about the protests where property was destroyed?
Violence is never appropriate unless in self defense. Bystanders don't deserve to have their lives flipped over in the name of visibility.
And tell me, how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party protest?
The one from 1773?
I think it's ancient history and we live in a more modern society.
I firmly believe in nonviolent protest, in the modern era, if you need the goalposts moved thusly
And this helps the cause how, exactly?
Attention to the problem.
You can act like it doesn't work, but the Civil Rights movement had no traction until white people were inconvenienced.
There was a lot more to the success of the civil rights movement than simply blocking traffic.
Sit ins, marching in the streets, and other disruptive actions that are comparable were a significant part of it.
Not being the whole thing doesn't mean it wasn't important.
There's this weird idea that the civil rights protestors were met with people clapping and cheering and waving American flags. They were not. Those protests were wildly unpopular in their time. It was only later on, after they succeeded in getting some change, that the attitudes and rhetoric around those protests changed.
Civil rights protests were effective.
People who like the status quo do not want effective protests.
I'm well aware. I was specifically talking about the modern tactic of sit-ins in the middle of busy intersections and protestors glueing themselves to the tarmac, and so forth.
I never called into question political protest in general, even though that's apparently what people are assuming I said.
Tell me, how do you feel about the protests where property was destroyed?
Violence is never appropriate unless in self defense. Bystanders don't deserve to have their lives flipped over in the name of visibility.
And tell me, how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party protest?
The one from 1773?
I think it's ancient history and we live in a more modern society.
I firmly believe in nonviolent protest, in the modern era, if you need the goalposts moved thusly