this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
103 points (94.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8154 readers
199 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
See, in this image, you would be the one standing in the back pissed off they can't just get their lunch and would be mad at the protestors.
History happens every day. You need to not be mistaken where you stand in it.
Firstly, getting food is different than literally being imprisoned in your car. Secondly, they could go to a different place and these people are actively attacking them not being victims of their protest.
If your devotion is to order, where your allegiance is to the polite convenience you've come to accept and expect as a first world consumer, you are no ally of justice.
I dont know what you are trying to get at. I think you should realize that getting on freeway and making everyone mad = bad protest; doing a sit-in and getting the harm visable = good protest.
Its that you make this comment without any comprehension of history.
In 1958, you would have been writing this exact same comment about a sit-in protest being "bad protest". Your worldview just rewrites you into being on the right side of history on things, when now, when you have the opportunity to be on the right side of history while its happening, you aren't.
Dude, I literally havent take a side, I am just telling you what I think works and what doesnt. If you think getting people fighting mad on a freeway is a way to win people over, I would have to disagree.
Like, I don't know how else to explain this to you, but that is quite literally a "side", both now and historically, in this discussion.
Read or learn literally anything about the history of protestation.
I assure you, you are already on a side, even if you dont know you are.
Again, no I am not taking a side, I am informing on what type of protest would be effective in my opinion.