I had to go look them up, but it seems that some have protested manufacturing plants, though not in a terribly effective way. The protests seem to be short-term, and none of the other things I mentioned have been done anywhere I was able to find.
I've seen plenty of stories involving protests uselessly blocking main thoroughfares however.
Well there you go. You can see what gets media attention. And just as the police responded to the road being blocked they're not going to let any protest in front of a politicians residence or corporate factory keep going either. Unless it's just a few people on a corner. Protesters in the US have been doing this a while, they know what they're doing.
... which just means you have to get creative.
Freeway blocking is not creative, doesn't get people present on your side (quite literally the opposite), presents safety risks, may delay emergency vehicles, wastes natural resources, and doesn't change minds of readers. Same with the stupid "throw soup / oil at a piece of art" shit I saw repeatedly. A throw-away headline seems to be the goal, but it accomplishes next to nothing.
Target. Those. In. Power. Make life fucking hard for them.
This thread (not you explicitly) reeks of this attitude I see frequently on Lemmy of "It's a deeply stupid and astoundingly flawed thing to do, but I'll defend it to the death because it agrees with my politics!"
You do know the emergency vehicles just drive up the other side right?
And the polling shows it does work.
In this one instance they might do that. In the area where I live where it was done, there was no space for the emergency vehicles to go in the other direction. Just because there are ways they could do it in this one case doesn't make it universal.
Also, are you able to provide the polling you referenced showing that highway blockades change minds? I was unable to find anything other than web and call-in polls, both of which overwhelmingly showed the exact opposite (but those are hardly scientific so I wouldn't trust them).
Also, I'm not the one downvoting you. I do not do that.
It's been the primary mode of protesting in the US for 70 years and the issues poll better over time.
But come now, certainly you must recognize that that's not even close to causation. Just because it's done often doesn't even come close to meaning that there's any proof that it functions as you state.
If I carry a "rock of tiger repellent" and tell you that I've never been attacked by a tiger, therefore it must work, it's the same logic.
Countries that do not (or rarely) have highway blockades have more civil rights or had them earlier than the US did. They also have stronger protections and aren't helping bomb Gaza. Using the logic stated by you, that may actually mean that highway protests make things worse.
Again, just because it agrees with you politically, doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's no study or data indicating that it functions, and scads of loose polls and information saying it doesn't (which are only slightly better than no evidence at all). I'd encourage an actual study, but judging by every thread I've ever seen on the issue, the only people claiming to be even minutely swayed by these demonstrations were people already on the side of the protesters.
You should really go look at how they got those rights. You're going to find street protests. Nobody got rights by politely asking for them.
Street protests generally carried out in front of royal palaces or civic structures where those in power worked had an impact, yes. NOT protests at a random road in town.
I am factually correct here.
I have never stated that protests aren't effective when carried out well. I've stated that these road blocking protests aren't effective because they do not target.
It's a very small percentage of people that can even do a street priest in front of a royal palace. You don't just jump to that. That's what all the other street protesting is about.
I had to go look them up, but it seems that some have protested manufacturing plants, though not in a terribly effective way. The protests seem to be short-term, and none of the other things I mentioned have been done anywhere I was able to find.
I've seen plenty of stories involving protests uselessly blocking main thoroughfares however.
Well there you go. You can see what gets media attention. And just as the police responded to the road being blocked they're not going to let any protest in front of a politicians residence or corporate factory keep going either. Unless it's just a few people on a corner. Protesters in the US have been doing this a while, they know what they're doing.
... which just means you have to get creative.
Freeway blocking is not creative, doesn't get people present on your side (quite literally the opposite), presents safety risks, may delay emergency vehicles, wastes natural resources, and doesn't change minds of readers. Same with the stupid "throw soup / oil at a piece of art" shit I saw repeatedly. A throw-away headline seems to be the goal, but it accomplishes next to nothing.
Target. Those. In. Power. Make life fucking hard for them.
This thread (not you explicitly) reeks of this attitude I see frequently on Lemmy of "It's a deeply stupid and astoundingly flawed thing to do, but I'll defend it to the death because it agrees with my politics!"
You do know the emergency vehicles just drive up the other side right?
And the polling shows it does work.
In this one instance they might do that. In the area where I live where it was done, there was no space for the emergency vehicles to go in the other direction. Just because there are ways they could do it in this one case doesn't make it universal.
Also, are you able to provide the polling you referenced showing that highway blockades change minds? I was unable to find anything other than web and call-in polls, both of which overwhelmingly showed the exact opposite (but those are hardly scientific so I wouldn't trust them).
Also, I'm not the one downvoting you. I do not do that.
It's been the primary mode of protesting in the US for 70 years and the issues poll better over time.
But come now, certainly you must recognize that that's not even close to causation. Just because it's done often doesn't even come close to meaning that there's any proof that it functions as you state.
If I carry a "rock of tiger repellent" and tell you that I've never been attacked by a tiger, therefore it must work, it's the same logic.
Countries that do not (or rarely) have highway blockades have more civil rights or had them earlier than the US did. They also have stronger protections and aren't helping bomb Gaza. Using the logic stated by you, that may actually mean that highway protests make things worse.
Again, just because it agrees with you politically, doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's no study or data indicating that it functions, and scads of loose polls and information saying it doesn't (which are only slightly better than no evidence at all). I'd encourage an actual study, but judging by every thread I've ever seen on the issue, the only people claiming to be even minutely swayed by these demonstrations were people already on the side of the protesters.
You should really go look at how they got those rights. You're going to find street protests. Nobody got rights by politely asking for them.
Street protests generally carried out in front of royal palaces or civic structures where those in power worked had an impact, yes. NOT protests at a random road in town.
I am factually correct here.
I have never stated that protests aren't effective when carried out well. I've stated that these road blocking protests aren't effective because they do not target.
It's a very small percentage of people that can even do a street priest in front of a royal palace. You don't just jump to that. That's what all the other street protesting is about.