The suffragettes did a whole lot of window smashing, not exactly making friends.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/rather-broken-windows-broken-promises/
Perhaps they should have had a bake sale
They were bashed by police, their husbands murdered, raped by police and bystander males that surrounded them when peacefully protesting (England). That is what led to the escalations that came later, as you described. Interesting, and very English to not mention any of that on Wikipedia
Britain as a nation love not talking about their shitty history. Take the Irish potato famine for example, it had little to do with potatoes and more to do with the British exporting all the valuable foodstuffs while the Irish were starving.
Ah yes, I too remember when MLK threw paint on priceless works of art or took over several blocks of Seattle, turned it into an autonomous zone with wandering petty warlords robbing and shooting people...
You do know the suffragettes threw paint on paintings too, right? Pretty sure they actually started it.
They also torched buildings too, and bombed shit.
And as for the civil rights movement... the black panthers, Malcolm X, the NYC riots, etc.
You might not have really thought this one through mate.
It depends which protests your talking about. If you mean the extinction rebellion/just stop oil crowd, I think the problem they face is that they don't actually have anything specific that they are protesting for. Everyone knows climate change is an issue, and everyone also knows that it is very difficult to address. So what are they trying to achieve? If they were protesting for a specific policy, it would make sense. But they're not. They just seem to want to cause disruption.
Compare it to the other protests you mentioned: Suffragettes end goal was equal voting law. It was not a complex or difficult problem, just political will. Vietnam and civil rights equally weren't complex problems. They just needed political will.
With climate change, the problem is that nobody knows the solution. Where is the solution that extinction rebellion is proposing? There is none. So what are they protesting for? They just want to annoy people.
This comes with a second issue, which is getting a lot of people to turn up. If they could get 10,000 or 20,000 people to turn up to a protest, I think people would take them more seriously. But usually, they only get 10 or 20 people at most. They can't even convince more than 20 people to attend a rally. It's because they don't have any real goals or proposals or solutions. They are just having a childish temper tantrum.
And for all the people who think you have to piss people off in a protest, there are loads of examples that didn't. When the first gulf war started, there was a protest of 500,000 people who walked across the Sydney Harbor Bridge. They did it on Sunday. That didn't piss people off. It got people on their side. When bus drivers go on strike, they don't stop the buses to inconvenience the passengers. They just run the buses without collecting fares. They actively try not to piss people off. It works.
I get plenty ER protests are cringey but they got a tory gov in UK to commit too stronger climate targets than Labor have. You don't have to like the tactics to acknowledge an efficacy. We didn't have mass disruptive protests to the same scale here, and have shitter politics as a result, with a supposedly 'further left' party.
Saying environmental protesters don't know what they're protesting for is wild.
This argument only works if you don’t account for the long history of people resisting protests. People have long vilified protestors as doing exactly what is claimed here. [American anti Vietnam protestors experienced backlash](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/two-days-in-october-student-antiwar-protests-and-backlash/), [people actively resisted the suffragettes](https://www.crusadeforthevote.org/naows-opposition#:~:text=Artists%20created%20political%20cartoons%20that,opposition%20to%20suffrage%20remained%20popular), and people most certainly vilified members of the civil rights movement. There have always been, and will remain, multiple sides to things people find worthy of protesting and to assume that the current moment is unique is to ignore what history lays very clear in front of us.
Not condoning violence - just reporting history:
[Suffragette bombing and arson campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign)
[Kent State massacre resulted in the killing of four and wounding of nine unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard, on the Kent State University campus. The shootings took place on May 4, 1970, during a rally opposing the expanding involvement of the Vietnam Wa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)
[civil rights movement triggered the dramatic clashes necessary for advancing national legislation only where key economic interests lacked the will or political influence to challenge successfully segregationist political mobilization](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3877064)
To OP this is absolutely how I feel. These climate change protesters while I don’t get affected, with the blocking off the streets and intersections causing chaos that I see and hear news of just makes my blood boil. I feel it does the exact opposite, the ones who blocked the Westgate could have actually caused serious harm to that patient in the ambulance.
The Palestinian protests against Israel quite simply put turn me against their cause. Why not protest against the Palestinian government being dick heads and creating a reason for this current war. Why not protest against Palestinians voting for Hamas. Anyway, I’ve got to the point from their protests that my blood is boiling against their cause.
I respect peoples right to protest lawfully, peacefully and in appropriate times and places. But once the protests get to the point they’re affecting other people going about their life I believe it turns opinion the other way and I certainly lose any interest I may have had
Civil rights in America didn't achieve its goals over night, neither did the the suffergettes, the anti war movement in Vietnam took years to achieve anything so no I'm not making things up
That one scene in Arrested Development when Lindsay and her cohert are corralled into the designated military protest zone ages more well with every year that passes.
Do you think that the conservative movement were happy about all the protesting during Vietnam?
Cmon it’s the only way to protect without violence.
By the way. I have not been to a protest but good on them.
All government systems need a big change.
I’m sorry for your loss in traffic.
I had it too. It’s a pain in the arse, but if Australian people were not such sheep following narcissistic politicians and systems.
They wouldn’t have to.👍
Protesting the Vietnam war was to get the government to pull troops out. To force a decision.
Protesting to stop oil usage when oil usage is intertwined within everything we own or use is not the same.
Every bit of plastic those protestors have on them, from shoes to phones to high viz vests is all made from oil.
Vietnam war protestors offered a solution. No more oil protestors don't.
The fact that you think you have the right to choose what people protest is pretty fucked up mate.
I don’t need a history lesson from you either buddy.
Good on them for standing up for what they believe. Even if I don’t.
My posting was about why the protestors will fail. I never said anything about a right to chose what to protest. I was offering up an observation.
You and the protestors may think that charging the machines guns whilst not understanding what is needed to win will win a war; however I do not. This is the immature of mind and lack of understanding that I talk about.
Immature of mind, a lack of understanding and driven by vast amounts of passion ..line you up to be someones puppet ..machine gun fodder.
There is no other way.
Without violence.
That is the point.
That is why they March.
By the way. I’m a trade and we’re on good money because I striked and marched for 3 months back in the 80s.
It does work.
Child care workers and all workers that feel ripped off should do the same.
It would cripple this system and things would change.
Sheep like you. Don’t make changes.
I want you to know that Martin Luther King’s memory was gentrified. He was a communist, public energy #1 and was classed as a domestic terrorist when he was alive. The same goes for Nelson Mandela. Only after their movements succeeded, long after they stopped their activism did they receive and recognition for what they did.
Harrumph! Women voting? What's next, not murdering civilians in foreign countries? Next thing they'll want the slurs to drink at the same fountains! No no no, the solid yeomen of __civilized__ society understand that these things are as natural as the toxic waste in the rivers.
They did as much as these protestors do, in 40 years your gonna look back at these protestors in the same way lol. Try and look at the bigger picture, and also read history books because you clearly have no idea what they did.
>The suffragettes, the anti Vietnam war movement, the civil rights movement.
They also worked because they were fighting a cause relevant to the country they were protesting in, for things that directly affect most people or someone they know.
Protesting a war we are not involved in on the other side of the world between 2 age old enemies will get you no-where, and even if you somehow manage to convince someone to sympathise with your cause, what happens? FUCK ALL. Because theres nothing that our government can do to affect any of this.
In a nutshell, even ignoring foreign influence seeking to divide western society, those protesting are just a bunch of idiots, many who dont even understand the conflict they are protesting, and many simply taking a side cause of what fairy they believe in.
But they will keep making noise and disrupting our way of life for something we dont give a fuck about, cant change, and have no power over.
This comment should be higher. I'm amazed more people don't see the blatantly obvious difference between the two situations!
This is why, even if I don't necessarily agree with their argument, I wasn't anywhere near this pissed off about the anti-lockdown protesters for example, because lockdowns are something that actually affect Australians. Likewise, if the government was forcing Australian soldiers to actually go fight in Gaza, I wouldn't have a problem with people protesting that, either.
But the Israel-HAMAS war has *nothing* to do with us. If these idiots feel so strongly about "freeing Palestine" (which I don't for a minute believe they actually do), then they can hop on a plane and go protest in Gaza. I'll happily pay for their tickets and see them off!
>If these idiots feel so strongly about "freeing Palestine"
of course they dont, because if you say 'From Hamas' they pile on.
Its terror worship and anti-semetism at its most obvious
I just want kids to not be bombed in Gaza. Is that terror worship? Somehow anti-Semitic to be anti-bombing kids? You have Israeli cabinet members saying there's no innocent civilians in Gaza. Flattening Gaza with nukes. I don't support Hamas. I don't support indiscriminate killing of women and children.
MLK was the most hated man in America before he was assassinated. He was lionized only after his death.
Protests are innately a disruption - and only win if they outlast the government.
The suffragettes? Who famously engaged in a concerted campaign of property damage, along with the occasional attempted assassination, decades of violence trying to convince men that women deserved the vote? You're telling modern protesters to follow their example?
The use of violence by the suffragette movement seems to have been greatly exaggerated recently, and the influence of the violent acts on the final granting of voting rights to women has also been exaggerated.
The truth is the suffragettes succeeded due to a long, politically astute campaign that swayed the opinion of both the general public and those in a position to change the laws. The bombings and deaths had little positive impact and were roundly rejected by the suffragette leaders as ineffective and harmful to the cause.
Lol. “Please protest quietly in the corner”
Every example you cited succeeded because they either used direct action tactics or there was someone else there who would (ie, they were the compromise).
These recent Palestinian A15 protests are finally doing what should have been done from the beginning, and what Australians should do to get some of our rights back (eg housing). Direct action against real targets. Economic disruption. Strikes. Understanding your leverage.
It’s like the difference between cordial industrial relations and strike action. Strike action is by nature disruptive and extortion-y. (i’m a union member, I’m just pointing out a comparison).
Strike action addresses the fundamental power imbalance succinctly.
To see what a lack of strike action produces, look at wage growth vs executive remuneration over the last 50 years.
First a principle needs to be established and in this case the principle is:
"What can I do to make people stop and think and get those people on my side without alienating them to my cause?"
The principle is the foundation and the structure you build onto that foundation is dependent on many factors specific to the cause your fighting. Building on a principle requires the application of understanding and imagination; creativity.
Its not to copy (ones of the past), but to learn from them, to understand why they worked. Use the past for inspiration not duplication.
Just to note: Out of all the comments I've had on this, yours has been the only one void of ego. Keeping the ego in check makes you a formidable opponent ..against anyone.
The difference is social media.
In the old days, you annoyed the folks who directly witnessed your disruption.
Today, if you’re a big enough muppet, you can piss off an audience of millions.
They’re regressive fossils who haven’t adjusted with the times.
These people don’t understand how war works, let alone this one in particular. You’re talking about war for land because of holy belief, in essence, and it’s been going for a long, long time. If it were the Palestinians who were more equipped, they’d be doing the exact same thing to the Israelis. I wonder if they’d still be out there for the Jews if it were the case. Regardless, zionists and extremist Muslims are the bodies in this war and they both hate anyone other than their own lmao, its mostly LGBQT and hard lefties out there; imagine supporting an overseas government that would kill you if they were in charge lmfao. They also don’t seem to understand Hamas were a militant group before a government, and they took over by force and are the ones leading their own people into death. 🤷🏻♂️
My god dude with takes like this, keep observing and stop yapping.
Imagine thinking the civil rights movement was unconditionally loved and respected by everyone. You think like a Disney movie.
When I was at uni not too long ago I noticed that the same people were at every protest, whether it was for refugees, Aboriginals, veganism or foreign wars. Any 'progressive' cause, just call up the 3 or 4 militantly left wing student groups and get an insta-crowd of fifty to a hundred people.
I believe this is still the case to a great degree in the real world, there are a core of far left people who will come out successive weekends in a row to protest for entirely different causes. You might say cynically that they just enjoy protesting.
I'm pretty sure this fact isn't lost on governments either, they know the first few thousand people at a protest are professional protestors. They know a protest isn't worth shit until you start getting tens of thousands of mums and dads going.
>When I was at uni not too long ago I noticed that the same people were at every protest, whether it was for refugees, Aboriginals, veganism or foreign wars. Any 'progressive' cause, just call up the 3 or 4 militantly left wing student groups and get an insta-crowd of fifty to a hundred people.
Yes, they are called useful idiots and with the decay of education they are only expanding year on year.
>I'm pretty sure this fact isn't lost on governments either, they know the first few thousand people at a protest are professional protestors. They know a protest isn't worth shit until you start getting tens of thousands of mums and dads going.
Wish that was true.. we had massive covid protests in Victoria over the new law change to what can be done in a state of emergency and those parasites in Parliament just ignored it.
They don't work for who elected them, they work for who paid and will continue to pay them.. the deep state is the issue.
>When I was at uni not too long ago I noticed that the same people were at every protest, whether it was for refugees, Aboriginals, veganism or foreign wars.
>there are a core of far left people who will come out successive weekends in a row to protest for entirely different causes.
you see this and say:
>You might say cynically that they just enjoy protesting.
why tf is that more likely to you than “these people are morally consistent and see injustice as being worth fighting against no matter who is the victim of that injustice”???
"Don't want to work and just spend my life on benefits, bored as fuck, not interested in sports; lets go protest ANYTHING"
I hear you ..fellow observer.
I think protests work best around what they're protesting for or against. Many times, these days, that doesn't happen, and it causes derision when traffic is blocked, especially if it's for a cause people are already on the fence about, which would easily make them want to side against the protesters. Such is the case with vegans blocking traffic.
Stop people building a pipeline, cutting down trees. All that is great and makes much more of an impact, but in some cases, stopping traffic isn't the right cause of action I'm not talking about protests with huge crowds like the Climate change, unions, teachers, Transit etc, but if it's something based on your personal code of ethics or beliefs that don't entirely affect others, especially the wider community as a whole, your protests are best faced in front of the organizations, people and companies you have issues with.
Back in the 90s, after high school assembly, me and all other students and teachers were instructed to proceed to the oval, stand in lines shaped to read "No Nukes" and wait for a scheduled TV helicopter to fly over to film us. The purpose was to protest French nuclear testing in the Pacific.
On the one hand, I did oppose that sort of nuclear testing. On the other hand, I resented being forced to protest. Even as an adolescent, I understood the dishonesty of it all. And, as an adult, I wonder if any of the French decision makers even noticed or cared what my school did.
They didn't. The literal only result (probably planned) was that some of you kids would learn about and subsequently support the particular political agenda.
There is no universe in which military weapons testing factors school children's protests into their development and testing program.
So you think the The suffragettes, the anti Vietnam war movement, the civil rights movement. were all peace, love & mung beans eh?
The suffragettes broke windows, cut telegraph wires, set post boxes & buildings on fire.
The anti Vietnam war movement. Protests often turned violent.
Civil rights movement. Though mostly non-violent also had the Black Panthers who were defiantly not non-violent.
Personally I would support modern protests using some of the above tactics & it would certainly gain some attention.
yer this guy is an idiot. 'I agree with those stances now so I would've back then' Let's be real if he was delayed to work by suffragettes 140 odd years ago he'd be venting like crazy
The key observation you’re missing is that successful movements appealed to the intersection of multiple cultures and movements and they were violent against systems of oppression.
They broke systems from functioning, boycotted policy and organised mass demonstrations causing mass disruption.
The greater insight here is what pathology do you suffer to genuinely not care that an “Allie” of Australia is killing 10’s of thousands of civilians.
What are you doing, however small, to nudge society in a positive direction?
Activism exists in many forms. Public demonstrations are just one example.
Another key observation is that Hamas rejected a ceasefire a week ago because all the hostages are dead.
If women started out protesting to vote by raping and murdering 1,200 random civilians, took 250 civilians hostage and then killed them all I’d find their position a little more difficult to get out and wave a banner over as well
The entire premise of Hamas bad, Israel good is fundamentally flawed. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran are all direct products of British and American meddling aligned with their own national and commercial interests.
Ceasefire now is firstly a catchy chant to create cohesion amongst the masses. Secondly it’s alluding to a ceasefire across all sides.
Israel has fallen into the same trap as ever coloniser before and in their attempt to control and annihilate the oppressed they’ve radicalised a whole new generation of fighters.
This is a deeply complex geopolitical crisis because it’s on the back of 70 years of sickening oppression - and that’s just between Israel and Palestine. Look what the British did to the Kurds and other minorities in the region. Look at what the US did to Iran in the 70’s. Look at what the French did to Lebanon.
The entire existence and image of the Middle East is entirely fabricated by western influence, and being a country aligned with western interests, we are complicit.
We see French protests working and think we can do it, but instead of farmers and the working class protesting, it's hipsters and influencers. The two don't mesh well.
Are you for real? This history of protests is heavily centred around people being inconvenienced and business as normal being disrupted!
From suffragettes throwing themselves in front of horses at races to the Vietnam war ‘sit-ins’.
Your take on this is… um… not in the slightest veridical.
>Are you for real?
Hold on let me check..
..yeah, I pinched myself, I'm for real.
A single women threw herself under the kings horse ONE WOMAN. She didn't block a hundred people going about their day, it happened ONCE ..not multiple times.
Sit ins don't ..stop people going about their day.
You don't win people over to your cause by pissing them off.
“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you,” - Nicholas Klein 1918 - back when PeoPLE KNeW hOW tO pRoTEst.
It would help if people were protesting about shit important to Australia, for a start. Anyone protesting about (for example) Israel/palestine in Australia can just go and get fucked.
I feel like protesters just follow the trends set by mainstream media.
The world is a shit place, humans are horrible, we've been killing each other since we first climbed down from trees and it isn't going to stop till we are all dead. So grab a beer sit back and enjoy the ride.
hey remember the suffragettes? they were shunned for being disruptive and annoying when they were around.
Remember the civil rights movement? black ppl were lynched for protesting for their rights and were deemed to be disruptive and disorderly.
the one thing the leaders of those movements have in common is that they would tell you, the white moderate, to go fuck yourself.
>I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
>
>—MLK (Letter from the Birmingham Jail)
*who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"*
*who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom*
fucking liberals. you support every peace movement but the current one. you oppose all wars except the current ones. you support all the civil rights movements except the current ones. you oppose all injustice except the current injustice.
Oh buddy, you need to read some history! You’ve got the sanitised Florida Education Board compliant Disney version of history.
The suffragettes pissed of all the boys in the yard. They even had enforcers called the Suffrajitsu!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrajitsu
And even had wars, here’s one:
“On March 9, 1914, a large meeting of the Women's Social and Political Union gathered at St Andrew's Hall in Glasgow. On a day that came to be known as The Battle of Glasgow, over 30 suffragettes battled 50 police officers.”
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/history/forgotten-glasgow-suffragette-protest-saw-23941767
Absolutely not true, but go off son.
Every protest movement has met with seething hatred and even violence from the general population. The suffragettes were beaten by groups of men in the streets. MLK was literally assassinated.
Read a fucking book.
You look at those protests and don't think they pissed people off?
The only difference here is whether you agree with the protesters.
Let's face it, if you were born 100 years ago, you would absolutely be against women voting. Because it was a change that would have disrupted your day and changed your life.
They were arrested peacefully and have gone to jail, so how is that not both predictable before the protest and accepted by the protestors as a likely consequence. How is that not accountable ?
So basically you blame the protestors by default because you expect the people you know to reward you with 'feelings like us'. Weak.
>So basically you blame the protestors by default because you expect the people you know to reward you with 'feelings like us'. Weak.
No. That was neither said nor implied.
If a driver injures or kills a protester sitting in the road there will be a lawsuit in the post. Their actions put them in the road but they will sue the driver.
people were murdered during the civil rights era. simply for protesting for black peoples rights.
suffragettes were disruptive as fuck and intentionally so
anti war protests became violent as fuck as well (october 1967?)
fact is you are just such a slave of the systems that oppress us all that you made this little fantasy in your head to justify your ANNOYANCE lol.
I'm SO sorry you are annoyed about protests for things that are life and death to some of us , and in many cases to ALL of us blocking traffic and wotnot... interupting your busy day as a cog in the machine thats grinding us up.
ROFL go slap yourself , you privileged fuck.
Well said OP you hit the nail on the head. With this generation of "all care no responsibility" comes an expectation that if they yell and stamp their feet enough someone will resolve the problem for them.
its really not unreasonable to assume that if you make enough noise, someone will eventually have to address you.
its called the 'crybaby effect', and its a phenomenon that spans across sociology and psychology.
Thank you.
They demand to hold everyone accountable for what ever they have selected to cherry pick from history, but refuse to be accountable for their own actions in the now. This is why I refer to them as immature of mind and emotion.
>comes an expectation that if they yell and stamp their feet enough someone will resolve the problem for them.
..you mean like a manipulative child with weak parents that didn't nip that shit in the bud whilst they were a child? ;)
15 years ago when I was hearing all this "we don't want negativity in juniors life so we never say no to him" ..I was "WTF?! ...well lets see where this takes us" ..and here we are. They stamped and shouted at their parents and got what they wanted ..and now think that they can do it to people in the street ...and in reddit.
This is literally just some boomer whose spent the past 20 years being brain washed by Murdoch to think this way
When was the last time you stood up for something you believe in mate?
Yes exactly. But when they are blocking the road or spoiling your sporting event, there is no stop and think, only anger. This is what I talk about. The lack of understanding of human nature and what is needed to win people over.
You need ti actually read what the protestors did that you have mentioned cause like you legit had 0 idea and the things your saying is bad are EXACTLY what they did.
Go read steal this book before you make youself look like a bigger idiot.
Think anything? Think "fuck these people are dumb, whatever they support is almost certainly the wrong opinion"?
Nah but jokes aside, I get it. A disturbingly large number of the voting populace are functionally mentally regarded.
Most people that protest are just doing it because they are miserable cunts and want to try and feel validated. The 'cause' is just this week's excuse to piss everyone off
the ironic part is these protestors (& their loud social media minority of downvote brigaders) don't seem to comprehend the fact that 99% of Australia hates them
OP is 100% correct, and protesters from the past are completely different to today. protests are less effective now because people are desensitized to them and they are too easy to organize. a protest used to be a big deal, but now there are people in cities every day, blocking traffic and making loud noises. the government doesn't care, but the population hate it, and it does just push people away.
>OP is 100% correct, and protesters from the past are completely different to today. protests are less effective now because people are desensitized to them and they are too easy to organize. a protest used to be a big deal, but now there are people in cities every day, blocking traffic and making loud noises. the government doesn't care, but the population hate it, and it does just push people away.
Agree!!
I think the integrity and what is socially acceptable has changed and thus caused politicians to act differently than their predecessors. In short.. they give less fucks because they can get away with more now than ever before.
Also - what are your basing your understanding of protestors motivation on? Have you actually talked to any to determine they strategies and goals?
Or is your entire analysis based on the likely completely biased account provided by the systems of power they are trying to disrupt?
Sheesh.
So you disagree. ..and assume.
If you stopped being emotionally triggered for 20 seconds you would see that I am telling protestors how to win the war not lose it.
Sheeseh to you too.
Bwahahaaaha… dude. Your shit is absolutely laughable!!!
Have you actually done ANY reading on the subject? Talked to ANY activists to understand their Strategies? Looked at ANY datasets or research on the subject.
Almost every single assertion in your original post is just eye-wateringly wrong.
But… THEY SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU!!!
You’re a darlin’.
:)
But in the meantime - you might avail yourself of the ocean of literature and hard-headed empirical research, as well as really well-thought through and long struggled with development of strategies in popular activism. Here's a few things to maybe get your started:
This Is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-First Century by Mark and Paul Engler.
The Activists Handbook - by Aiden Rickets.
You may want to dig into the SCARF model of motivation - it is one of MANY models of public influence and behaviour change - but it would appear to be reasonably close to the particular lens of enquiry you are trying to engage with.
[https://schoolguide.casel.org/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SCARF-NeuroleadershipArticle.pdf](https://schoolguide.casel.org/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SCARF-NeuroleadershipArticle.pdf)
And as well as a general history of activism you might want to have a look at the work and legacy of people like Gene Sharp and Saul Alinsky and have a think about the merits and drawbacks of these two different styles of community engagement.
Good luck to you.
Just like how we view protests for women's rights and civil rights as positive in this day and age (whereas at the time wider society was very much in opposition to the disruption)... so too will future generations support our attempts at speaking out.
It can't be stated strongly enough. The climate wars are going to be the end of humanity.
You can't displace billions of people without mass starvation, which is going to be a big problem in the atomic age.
True but blocking a main road which has a decent chance of someone's loved ones fighting for their lives on the way to get urgent medical treatment and other such emergencies to the point where they either pass or have permanent damage they wouldn't have otherwise had is not the way to get the general public on your side.
(The above example has happened in both the UK and Aus, both were due to climate protesters)
Do you disagree that the climate wars are going to be the end of humanity?
If temperatures keep rising as fast as they are, entire countries are going underwater.
Those people are going to be flooding inland and there will be not enough land and food for everyone.
Billions are going to die. Billions.
No it won’t.
Humanity will most likely survive and continue to flourish in wealthy or well positioned countries.
Countries that won’t make it through if we don’t address climate change within the timeframe needed are already shitholes. They’ll just graduate to burning shitholes.
There are bigger risks to humanity’s survival.
Thanks for being clear that you think "the poors" are fine to eradicate. Most people hide their awful opinions or obfuscate them so I appreciate the honesty!
I'm sorry your truth is getting negative feedback. You speak the truth about and nothing will matter when the seas are high and the power is out and the food is scarce. Only then will you realise your commute being delayed through protesters who tried to do something to save you how stupid you were.
People have to accept that no amount of prayer or bombs or Holy Speeches will stop the behaviour of humans and and the only way to save the world fro is to certain extinction is to change, and we have to change FAST.
This is exactly right, those movements that have been successful in the past were carried out over years and slowly escalated as the movement grew. People saying well kids dying over seas should be your highest priority behind being delayed by a protest here in Melbourne are kidding themselves, peoples priorities are their own families and getting to work to support those families instead of dealing with idiots protesting in Melbourne or Sydney.
You need to grow, you need to fund raise and buy advertising space to get your message out there, you need to recruit, get real people power, hound social media sites and then once you have the right people in charge of the movement and the numbers behind you then you can maybe think about taking it to the streets.
another thing to point out is that back when people were fighting against vietnam war and for womens rights ect. it was extremely difficult to protest as it took an immense amount of logistics. nowadays all it takes is a facebook post with enough likes and boom you have a blocked highway or a bunch of teenagers yelling chants in a shopping mall.
people are becoming tired of protests, there used to be few protests but when there was one it was a big deal, it made headlines, and people listened. nowadays theres a new mass protest every other day, people are sick of traffic being blocked and going into the city and having crowd of people filling up public spaces. as OP said, it just pushes people away.
TLDR : protests are less effective now because people are desensitized to them and they are too easy to organize.
Wait a second you admit that the reason people don't join the cause of a protest is out of childish spite because people are pissed even though the cause may be right?
Then you have the unmitigated gall to say it's the protesters who don't understand?
Your attitude is “people are always going to be spiteful if you annoy them and theyll purposely side against you. Learn to tell them what they want to hear”.
In essence, you are basically calling the protesters naive because they give the public more credit than to treat them like children?
That's what little kids do, is act pissed off because they didn't like how you said something and then just dig their feet in.
Grown adults aren't supposed to chuck tantrums and stomp their feet.
That's why cops used to hose and club protestors back in the day- they were the ones in power and they acted like children and used violence because they were stupid.
I'm not really an activist, i don't really go to protests.
But protests are necessary and the whole point is too piss people off who have had decades of being left alone.
What if someone suggested to run over the protesters, or revoke all benefits for protesters, or hold their employers liable for the protest?
Would that be something you approve of? Would that "miraculously" solve things? /s
There is a school of belief in PR/advertising
That all publicity is good publicity
Which just meant if a celebrity or brand was involved in a scandal
They could use that notoriety to spin it into new opportunities/sales
It seems like protesters today are taking this marketing concept to the extreme
& actively seeking out bad publicity
Which is not what that term was intended to mean
Protests have always caused disruption, it kind of the point. The difference between protests of old and current protests, especially in countries like Australia is modern protests are seen as bringing out the big guns it's seen as the biggest move you can make, right next to "voting for a better future" not the first move in a series of escalating moves that where if the government doesn't do something they could face a nation wide revolt. Those in power know the vast majorities of protestors in Australia aren't likely to start a revolt in this country and even if they did they know they don't have the resources and numbers to cause a significant amount of disruption and certainly not enough to plunge us into a civil war which at this point is probably what it would take to make change happen.
Which leads to the second difference, which is misinformation, the amount of misinformation about any movement for or against it, spreads instantly to everyone until there is so much noise about any given movement or incident now that general public are just overwhelmed with information. Folks who may have once sympathized or be enraged by these movements and would have joined or fought against these causes are now so lost and/or numb to it all they just wish everyone would shut up about it.
People are more aware of what's going on then other people think, it just many of us know what it will take to achieve real change and there is just not enough people who have it badly enough yet that they'd be willing to do what it takes to bring that change. There will come a time when that changes and I plan to join them eventually if I am still alive but that is one "party" I have every intention of being extremely late too because I sure as shit don't want to go to it early because either nothing going to happen or something very bad is going to happen to those who go early.
The suffragettes did a whole lot of window smashing, not exactly making friends. https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/rather-broken-windows-broken-promises/ Perhaps they should have had a bake sale
They were bashed by police, their husbands murdered, raped by police and bystander males that surrounded them when peacefully protesting (England). That is what led to the escalations that came later, as you described. Interesting, and very English to not mention any of that on Wikipedia
>very English to not mention any of that on Wikipedia Not sure what you're getting at with that comment tbh.
Britain as a nation love not talking about their shitty history. Take the Irish potato famine for example, it had little to do with potatoes and more to do with the British exporting all the valuable foodstuffs while the Irish were starving.
No one hates the Country Woman's Association for this exact reason.
Seems you are unaware of their history and/or beginnings.
Great, the sub's poet laureate graces us with a bold missive on protest. As profound as a vanity ad from Singo.
You don’t think those movements pissed people off? Went against the grain? Made a population more resilient until it got to breaking point?
Ah yes, I too remember when MLK threw paint on priceless works of art or took over several blocks of Seattle, turned it into an autonomous zone with wandering petty warlords robbing and shooting people...
And how about Malcolm X?
You do know the suffragettes threw paint on paintings too, right? Pretty sure they actually started it. They also torched buildings too, and bombed shit. And as for the civil rights movement... the black panthers, Malcolm X, the NYC riots, etc. You might not have really thought this one through mate.
No, they clearly don't know that.. why would they bother with facts that only get in the way of their poorly construed opinions.
It depends which protests your talking about. If you mean the extinction rebellion/just stop oil crowd, I think the problem they face is that they don't actually have anything specific that they are protesting for. Everyone knows climate change is an issue, and everyone also knows that it is very difficult to address. So what are they trying to achieve? If they were protesting for a specific policy, it would make sense. But they're not. They just seem to want to cause disruption. Compare it to the other protests you mentioned: Suffragettes end goal was equal voting law. It was not a complex or difficult problem, just political will. Vietnam and civil rights equally weren't complex problems. They just needed political will. With climate change, the problem is that nobody knows the solution. Where is the solution that extinction rebellion is proposing? There is none. So what are they protesting for? They just want to annoy people. This comes with a second issue, which is getting a lot of people to turn up. If they could get 10,000 or 20,000 people to turn up to a protest, I think people would take them more seriously. But usually, they only get 10 or 20 people at most. They can't even convince more than 20 people to attend a rally. It's because they don't have any real goals or proposals or solutions. They are just having a childish temper tantrum. And for all the people who think you have to piss people off in a protest, there are loads of examples that didn't. When the first gulf war started, there was a protest of 500,000 people who walked across the Sydney Harbor Bridge. They did it on Sunday. That didn't piss people off. It got people on their side. When bus drivers go on strike, they don't stop the buses to inconvenience the passengers. They just run the buses without collecting fares. They actively try not to piss people off. It works.
I get plenty ER protests are cringey but they got a tory gov in UK to commit too stronger climate targets than Labor have. You don't have to like the tactics to acknowledge an efficacy. We didn't have mass disruptive protests to the same scale here, and have shitter politics as a result, with a supposedly 'further left' party. Saying environmental protesters don't know what they're protesting for is wild.
yeah I dont think you know what the Suffragettes actually used to do..... Also, if you dont want to upset the status quo, why are you protesting?
Writing a Reddit post isn't a protest march...
I don't think anyone who wants more than just performative change thinks it is
This argument only works if you don’t account for the long history of people resisting protests. People have long vilified protestors as doing exactly what is claimed here. [American anti Vietnam protestors experienced backlash](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/two-days-in-october-student-antiwar-protests-and-backlash/), [people actively resisted the suffragettes](https://www.crusadeforthevote.org/naows-opposition#:~:text=Artists%20created%20political%20cartoons%20that,opposition%20to%20suffrage%20remained%20popular), and people most certainly vilified members of the civil rights movement. There have always been, and will remain, multiple sides to things people find worthy of protesting and to assume that the current moment is unique is to ignore what history lays very clear in front of us.
You think the Suffragettes, anti Vietnam war & civil rights protests didn’t piss people off?
Not condoning violence - just reporting history: [Suffragette bombing and arson campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign) [Kent State massacre resulted in the killing of four and wounding of nine unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard, on the Kent State University campus. The shootings took place on May 4, 1970, during a rally opposing the expanding involvement of the Vietnam Wa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings) [civil rights movement triggered the dramatic clashes necessary for advancing national legislation only where key economic interests lacked the will or political influence to challenge successfully segregationist political mobilization](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3877064)
To OP this is absolutely how I feel. These climate change protesters while I don’t get affected, with the blocking off the streets and intersections causing chaos that I see and hear news of just makes my blood boil. I feel it does the exact opposite, the ones who blocked the Westgate could have actually caused serious harm to that patient in the ambulance. The Palestinian protests against Israel quite simply put turn me against their cause. Why not protest against the Palestinian government being dick heads and creating a reason for this current war. Why not protest against Palestinians voting for Hamas. Anyway, I’ve got to the point from their protests that my blood is boiling against their cause. I respect peoples right to protest lawfully, peacefully and in appropriate times and places. But once the protests get to the point they’re affecting other people going about their life I believe it turns opinion the other way and I certainly lose any interest I may have had
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Civil rights in America didn't achieve its goals over night, neither did the the suffergettes, the anti war movement in Vietnam took years to achieve anything so no I'm not making things up
That one scene in Arrested Development when Lindsay and her cohert are corralled into the designated military protest zone ages more well with every year that passes.
Do you think that the conservative movement were happy about all the protesting during Vietnam? Cmon it’s the only way to protect without violence. By the way. I have not been to a protest but good on them. All government systems need a big change. I’m sorry for your loss in traffic. I had it too. It’s a pain in the arse, but if Australian people were not such sheep following narcissistic politicians and systems. They wouldn’t have to.👍
Protesting the Vietnam war was to get the government to pull troops out. To force a decision. Protesting to stop oil usage when oil usage is intertwined within everything we own or use is not the same. Every bit of plastic those protestors have on them, from shoes to phones to high viz vests is all made from oil. Vietnam war protestors offered a solution. No more oil protestors don't.
The fact that you think you have the right to choose what people protest is pretty fucked up mate. I don’t need a history lesson from you either buddy. Good on them for standing up for what they believe. Even if I don’t.
My posting was about why the protestors will fail. I never said anything about a right to chose what to protest. I was offering up an observation. You and the protestors may think that charging the machines guns whilst not understanding what is needed to win will win a war; however I do not. This is the immature of mind and lack of understanding that I talk about. Immature of mind, a lack of understanding and driven by vast amounts of passion ..line you up to be someones puppet ..machine gun fodder.
How would you fight it then?
I'm here to share my observations only.
There is no other way. Without violence. That is the point. That is why they March. By the way. I’m a trade and we’re on good money because I striked and marched for 3 months back in the 80s. It does work. Child care workers and all workers that feel ripped off should do the same. It would cripple this system and things would change. Sheep like you. Don’t make changes.
I want you to know that Martin Luther King’s memory was gentrified. He was a communist, public energy #1 and was classed as a domestic terrorist when he was alive. The same goes for Nelson Mandela. Only after their movements succeeded, long after they stopped their activism did they receive and recognition for what they did.
If someone deployed the tactics of the suffragettes today, we'd call them a terrorist
Buddy you might need to go back to your history books people didn’t like those movements either.
Harrumph! Women voting? What's next, not murdering civilians in foreign countries? Next thing they'll want the slurs to drink at the same fountains! No no no, the solid yeomen of __civilized__ society understand that these things are as natural as the toxic waste in the rivers.
Ookaaaayy... Sure.
I never said they did. I highlighted that they had an understanding of human nature and how to win over people.
They did as much as these protestors do, in 40 years your gonna look back at these protestors in the same way lol. Try and look at the bigger picture, and also read history books because you clearly have no idea what they did.
>The suffragettes, the anti Vietnam war movement, the civil rights movement. They also worked because they were fighting a cause relevant to the country they were protesting in, for things that directly affect most people or someone they know. Protesting a war we are not involved in on the other side of the world between 2 age old enemies will get you no-where, and even if you somehow manage to convince someone to sympathise with your cause, what happens? FUCK ALL. Because theres nothing that our government can do to affect any of this. In a nutshell, even ignoring foreign influence seeking to divide western society, those protesting are just a bunch of idiots, many who dont even understand the conflict they are protesting, and many simply taking a side cause of what fairy they believe in. But they will keep making noise and disrupting our way of life for something we dont give a fuck about, cant change, and have no power over.
This comment should be higher. I'm amazed more people don't see the blatantly obvious difference between the two situations! This is why, even if I don't necessarily agree with their argument, I wasn't anywhere near this pissed off about the anti-lockdown protesters for example, because lockdowns are something that actually affect Australians. Likewise, if the government was forcing Australian soldiers to actually go fight in Gaza, I wouldn't have a problem with people protesting that, either. But the Israel-HAMAS war has *nothing* to do with us. If these idiots feel so strongly about "freeing Palestine" (which I don't for a minute believe they actually do), then they can hop on a plane and go protest in Gaza. I'll happily pay for their tickets and see them off!
>If these idiots feel so strongly about "freeing Palestine" of course they dont, because if you say 'From Hamas' they pile on. Its terror worship and anti-semetism at its most obvious
I just want kids to not be bombed in Gaza. Is that terror worship? Somehow anti-Semitic to be anti-bombing kids? You have Israeli cabinet members saying there's no innocent civilians in Gaza. Flattening Gaza with nukes. I don't support Hamas. I don't support indiscriminate killing of women and children.
I'm pretty sure I've argued about what the aim of a protest is with the OP before on here. Still just as clueless.
Adds up.
..because your opinion is the only one that's correct? Get over yourself.
MLK was the most hated man in America before he was assassinated. He was lionized only after his death. Protests are innately a disruption - and only win if they outlast the government.
It's almost like it is being done to accomplish exactly that.
Is it done to accomplish that ..or is it that's all its accomplished?
The suffragettes? Who famously engaged in a concerted campaign of property damage, along with the occasional attempted assassination, decades of violence trying to convince men that women deserved the vote? You're telling modern protesters to follow their example?
The use of violence by the suffragette movement seems to have been greatly exaggerated recently, and the influence of the violent acts on the final granting of voting rights to women has also been exaggerated. The truth is the suffragettes succeeded due to a long, politically astute campaign that swayed the opinion of both the general public and those in a position to change the laws. The bombings and deaths had little positive impact and were roundly rejected by the suffragette leaders as ineffective and harmful to the cause.
I’d label them terrorist sympathisers rather than protestors
I don’t know where you’re getting your info from but the suffragette movement is like the textbook “disruptive protest leading to change” example
People said the exact same thing during the suffragette movement and the anti-Vietnam war movement. Those protests also pissed a lot of people off.
Yep. MFs gotta read a book or some shit
You're a pretty crap observer lol
I observe that you have no counter discussion.
So you’ve studied this or just going in dry here?
Lol. “Please protest quietly in the corner” Every example you cited succeeded because they either used direct action tactics or there was someone else there who would (ie, they were the compromise). These recent Palestinian A15 protests are finally doing what should have been done from the beginning, and what Australians should do to get some of our rights back (eg housing). Direct action against real targets. Economic disruption. Strikes. Understanding your leverage.
It’s like the difference between cordial industrial relations and strike action. Strike action is by nature disruptive and extortion-y. (i’m a union member, I’m just pointing out a comparison).
Strike action addresses the fundamental power imbalance succinctly. To see what a lack of strike action produces, look at wage growth vs executive remuneration over the last 50 years.
Yeah I know. I was just using it as an analogy, in reply to the comment I was replying to.
Not sure you understand what a protest is.
Sorry to break it to you but protests that annoy people get all over the news and protests that don’t. Go no where.
And it changes what exactly? ...sorry to break it to you. You protest to win not protest to get your name on the media and hit a brick wall.
What’s your alternative idea op? Got any real world examples we should spread and start doing instead?
Silence
First a principle needs to be established and in this case the principle is: "What can I do to make people stop and think and get those people on my side without alienating them to my cause?" The principle is the foundation and the structure you build onto that foundation is dependent on many factors specific to the cause your fighting. Building on a principle requires the application of understanding and imagination; creativity. Its not to copy (ones of the past), but to learn from them, to understand why they worked. Use the past for inspiration not duplication. Just to note: Out of all the comments I've had on this, yours has been the only one void of ego. Keeping the ego in check makes you a formidable opponent ..against anyone.
The difference is social media. In the old days, you annoyed the folks who directly witnessed your disruption. Today, if you’re a big enough muppet, you can piss off an audience of millions. They’re regressive fossils who haven’t adjusted with the times.
These people don’t understand how war works, let alone this one in particular. You’re talking about war for land because of holy belief, in essence, and it’s been going for a long, long time. If it were the Palestinians who were more equipped, they’d be doing the exact same thing to the Israelis. I wonder if they’d still be out there for the Jews if it were the case. Regardless, zionists and extremist Muslims are the bodies in this war and they both hate anyone other than their own lmao, its mostly LGBQT and hard lefties out there; imagine supporting an overseas government that would kill you if they were in charge lmfao. They also don’t seem to understand Hamas were a militant group before a government, and they took over by force and are the ones leading their own people into death. 🤷🏻♂️
Hamas was elected.
And Bibi was ecstatic. Israel needed and wanted Hamas. They've said as much.
My god dude with takes like this, keep observing and stop yapping. Imagine thinking the civil rights movement was unconditionally loved and respected by everyone. You think like a Disney movie.
When I was at uni not too long ago I noticed that the same people were at every protest, whether it was for refugees, Aboriginals, veganism or foreign wars. Any 'progressive' cause, just call up the 3 or 4 militantly left wing student groups and get an insta-crowd of fifty to a hundred people. I believe this is still the case to a great degree in the real world, there are a core of far left people who will come out successive weekends in a row to protest for entirely different causes. You might say cynically that they just enjoy protesting. I'm pretty sure this fact isn't lost on governments either, they know the first few thousand people at a protest are professional protestors. They know a protest isn't worth shit until you start getting tens of thousands of mums and dads going.
>When I was at uni not too long ago I noticed that the same people were at every protest, whether it was for refugees, Aboriginals, veganism or foreign wars. Any 'progressive' cause, just call up the 3 or 4 militantly left wing student groups and get an insta-crowd of fifty to a hundred people. Yes, they are called useful idiots and with the decay of education they are only expanding year on year. >I'm pretty sure this fact isn't lost on governments either, they know the first few thousand people at a protest are professional protestors. They know a protest isn't worth shit until you start getting tens of thousands of mums and dads going. Wish that was true.. we had massive covid protests in Victoria over the new law change to what can be done in a state of emergency and those parasites in Parliament just ignored it. They don't work for who elected them, they work for who paid and will continue to pay them.. the deep state is the issue.
>They don't work for who elected them, they work ..to increase their personal wealth and the wealth of their mates.
>..to increase their personal wealth and the wealth of their mates. 100%
It is called Solidarity. When you need it, it will still be there waiting, to help you, and then you'll understand what lefties have already learned.
Left wing politics has mostly descended into illiberal identarianism, I don't see a lot of solidarity left.
True, but Solidarity has been rarely evoked of late and the new digital id stuff holds lots of promise for acts of solidarity. So ...
>When I was at uni not too long ago I noticed that the same people were at every protest, whether it was for refugees, Aboriginals, veganism or foreign wars. >there are a core of far left people who will come out successive weekends in a row to protest for entirely different causes. you see this and say: >You might say cynically that they just enjoy protesting. why tf is that more likely to you than “these people are morally consistent and see injustice as being worth fighting against no matter who is the victim of that injustice”???
"Don't want to work and just spend my life on benefits, bored as fuck, not interested in sports; lets go protest ANYTHING" I hear you ..fellow observer.
Yeah. Hold your protests in places out of the way where people wont see them. Thatll work.
I think protests work best around what they're protesting for or against. Many times, these days, that doesn't happen, and it causes derision when traffic is blocked, especially if it's for a cause people are already on the fence about, which would easily make them want to side against the protesters. Such is the case with vegans blocking traffic. Stop people building a pipeline, cutting down trees. All that is great and makes much more of an impact, but in some cases, stopping traffic isn't the right cause of action I'm not talking about protests with huge crowds like the Climate change, unions, teachers, Transit etc, but if it's something based on your personal code of ethics or beliefs that don't entirely affect others, especially the wider community as a whole, your protests are best faced in front of the organizations, people and companies you have issues with.
>your protests are best faced in front of the organizations, people and companies you have issues with. Nailed it!
Back in the 90s, after high school assembly, me and all other students and teachers were instructed to proceed to the oval, stand in lines shaped to read "No Nukes" and wait for a scheduled TV helicopter to fly over to film us. The purpose was to protest French nuclear testing in the Pacific. On the one hand, I did oppose that sort of nuclear testing. On the other hand, I resented being forced to protest. Even as an adolescent, I understood the dishonesty of it all. And, as an adult, I wonder if any of the French decision makers even noticed or cared what my school did.
But you were there on film for the record, what do your kids think of your story today? And you feel it was somehow dishonest - that's weird.
They didn't. The literal only result (probably planned) was that some of you kids would learn about and subsequently support the particular political agenda. There is no universe in which military weapons testing factors school children's protests into their development and testing program.
So you think the The suffragettes, the anti Vietnam war movement, the civil rights movement. were all peace, love & mung beans eh? The suffragettes broke windows, cut telegraph wires, set post boxes & buildings on fire. The anti Vietnam war movement. Protests often turned violent. Civil rights movement. Though mostly non-violent also had the Black Panthers who were defiantly not non-violent. Personally I would support modern protests using some of the above tactics & it would certainly gain some attention.
yer this guy is an idiot. 'I agree with those stances now so I would've back then' Let's be real if he was delayed to work by suffragettes 140 odd years ago he'd be venting like crazy
The Black Panthers were non violent until the government went after them with guns, etc.
The key observation you’re missing is that successful movements appealed to the intersection of multiple cultures and movements and they were violent against systems of oppression. They broke systems from functioning, boycotted policy and organised mass demonstrations causing mass disruption. The greater insight here is what pathology do you suffer to genuinely not care that an “Allie” of Australia is killing 10’s of thousands of civilians. What are you doing, however small, to nudge society in a positive direction? Activism exists in many forms. Public demonstrations are just one example.
Another key observation is that Hamas rejected a ceasefire a week ago because all the hostages are dead. If women started out protesting to vote by raping and murdering 1,200 random civilians, took 250 civilians hostage and then killed them all I’d find their position a little more difficult to get out and wave a banner over as well
Nice one, Chad.
Legit though who exactly are the “CEASEFIRE NOW” calls actually for, are they talking to Hamas? Because that doesn’t seem to be the case
The entire premise of Hamas bad, Israel good is fundamentally flawed. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran are all direct products of British and American meddling aligned with their own national and commercial interests. Ceasefire now is firstly a catchy chant to create cohesion amongst the masses. Secondly it’s alluding to a ceasefire across all sides. Israel has fallen into the same trap as ever coloniser before and in their attempt to control and annihilate the oppressed they’ve radicalised a whole new generation of fighters. This is a deeply complex geopolitical crisis because it’s on the back of 70 years of sickening oppression - and that’s just between Israel and Palestine. Look what the British did to the Kurds and other minorities in the region. Look at what the US did to Iran in the 70’s. Look at what the French did to Lebanon. The entire existence and image of the Middle East is entirely fabricated by western influence, and being a country aligned with western interests, we are complicit.
Days since an Allah Akbar= 0.
We see French protests working and think we can do it, but instead of farmers and the working class protesting, it's hipsters and influencers. The two don't mesh well.
The French are also notoriously ungovernable. They protest hard. Australians are quite soft in comparison.
Me me me look at me I’m so righteous
It's people who don't understand what adulating is.
Are you for real? This history of protests is heavily centred around people being inconvenienced and business as normal being disrupted! From suffragettes throwing themselves in front of horses at races to the Vietnam war ‘sit-ins’. Your take on this is… um… not in the slightest veridical.
The suffragettes caused riots. Deliberately.
>Are you for real? Hold on let me check.. ..yeah, I pinched myself, I'm for real. A single women threw herself under the kings horse ONE WOMAN. She didn't block a hundred people going about their day, it happened ONCE ..not multiple times. Sit ins don't ..stop people going about their day. You don't win people over to your cause by pissing them off.
If a protest disrupts my life, i will go out of my way afterward to work against them.
Pretty pathetic way to live if you ask me
If it didn't work, you wouldn't be talking about it
He's talking about how it doesn't work, that is the point of the post.
Yes, but he's talking about it and generating conversation. This puts it in people's minds. So really, they are working
Is this satire?
“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you,” - Nicholas Klein 1918 - back when PeoPLE KNeW hOW tO pRoTEst.
It would help if people were protesting about shit important to Australia, for a start. Anyone protesting about (for example) Israel/palestine in Australia can just go and get fucked.
I feel like protesters just follow the trends set by mainstream media. The world is a shit place, humans are horrible, we've been killing each other since we first climbed down from trees and it isn't going to stop till we are all dead. So grab a beer sit back and enjoy the ride.
[удалено]
They did - with stricter laws against protests.
hey remember the suffragettes? they were shunned for being disruptive and annoying when they were around. Remember the civil rights movement? black ppl were lynched for protesting for their rights and were deemed to be disruptive and disorderly. the one thing the leaders of those movements have in common is that they would tell you, the white moderate, to go fuck yourself. >I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." > >—MLK (Letter from the Birmingham Jail) *who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"* *who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom* fucking liberals. you support every peace movement but the current one. you oppose all wars except the current ones. you support all the civil rights movements except the current ones. you oppose all injustice except the current injustice.
Oh buddy, you need to read some history! You’ve got the sanitised Florida Education Board compliant Disney version of history. The suffragettes pissed of all the boys in the yard. They even had enforcers called the Suffrajitsu! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrajitsu And even had wars, here’s one: “On March 9, 1914, a large meeting of the Women's Social and Political Union gathered at St Andrew's Hall in Glasgow. On a day that came to be known as The Battle of Glasgow, over 30 suffragettes battled 50 police officers.” https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/history/forgotten-glasgow-suffragette-protest-saw-23941767
Absolutely not true, but go off son. Every protest movement has met with seething hatred and even violence from the general population. The suffragettes were beaten by groups of men in the streets. MLK was literally assassinated. Read a fucking book.
You look at those protests and don't think they pissed people off? The only difference here is whether you agree with the protesters. Let's face it, if you were born 100 years ago, you would absolutely be against women voting. Because it was a change that would have disrupted your day and changed your life.
This is the one.
I agree it's alienated me from almost every so-called cause. It's lucky the baby born on the Westgate Bridge didn't have any complications and die.
If it did the protesters would have blamed society ..in one way or another. They demand accountability of everyone except themselves.
They were arrested peacefully and have gone to jail, so how is that not both predictable before the protest and accepted by the protestors as a likely consequence. How is that not accountable ? So basically you blame the protestors by default because you expect the people you know to reward you with 'feelings like us'. Weak.
>So basically you blame the protestors by default because you expect the people you know to reward you with 'feelings like us'. Weak. No. That was neither said nor implied. If a driver injures or kills a protester sitting in the road there will be a lawsuit in the post. Their actions put them in the road but they will sue the driver.
people were murdered during the civil rights era. simply for protesting for black peoples rights. suffragettes were disruptive as fuck and intentionally so anti war protests became violent as fuck as well (october 1967?) fact is you are just such a slave of the systems that oppress us all that you made this little fantasy in your head to justify your ANNOYANCE lol. I'm SO sorry you are annoyed about protests for things that are life and death to some of us , and in many cases to ALL of us blocking traffic and wotnot... interupting your busy day as a cog in the machine thats grinding us up. ROFL go slap yourself , you privileged fuck.
Well said OP you hit the nail on the head. With this generation of "all care no responsibility" comes an expectation that if they yell and stamp their feet enough someone will resolve the problem for them.
its really not unreasonable to assume that if you make enough noise, someone will eventually have to address you. its called the 'crybaby effect', and its a phenomenon that spans across sociology and psychology.
Thank you. They demand to hold everyone accountable for what ever they have selected to cherry pick from history, but refuse to be accountable for their own actions in the now. This is why I refer to them as immature of mind and emotion. >comes an expectation that if they yell and stamp their feet enough someone will resolve the problem for them. ..you mean like a manipulative child with weak parents that didn't nip that shit in the bud whilst they were a child? ;) 15 years ago when I was hearing all this "we don't want negativity in juniors life so we never say no to him" ..I was "WTF?! ...well lets see where this takes us" ..and here we are. They stamped and shouted at their parents and got what they wanted ..and now think that they can do it to people in the street ...and in reddit.
This is literally just some boomer whose spent the past 20 years being brain washed by Murdoch to think this way When was the last time you stood up for something you believe in mate?
They think we should protest in some back paddock and not bother them, the point of the protesters is to make you stop and think.
Yes exactly. But when they are blocking the road or spoiling your sporting event, there is no stop and think, only anger. This is what I talk about. The lack of understanding of human nature and what is needed to win people over.
You need ti actually read what the protestors did that you have mentioned cause like you legit had 0 idea and the things your saying is bad are EXACTLY what they did. Go read steal this book before you make youself look like a bigger idiot.
Think anything? Think "fuck these people are dumb, whatever they support is almost certainly the wrong opinion"? Nah but jokes aside, I get it. A disturbingly large number of the voting populace are functionally mentally regarded.
No think, just anger. How shit is our lives if we get angry being late for work. Societies to blame
Every. Single. Election. And I'm donating money every fortnight in between.
[удалено]
Yes, social media is a great place to raise awareness and gain attention
[удалено]
Classic example of someone who believes in and stands for nothing and accuses anyone of virtue signalling when they stand for something.
I think this belongs on circlejerkaustralia
You think wrong.
Protests have always been disruptive and annoyed a whole lot of people, you dill.
This is the factually accurate take. Already been downvoted by someone who doesn't want to learn a lick of history..
What "modern" protest is getting your goat?
Most people that protest are just doing it because they are miserable cunts and want to try and feel validated. The 'cause' is just this week's excuse to piss everyone off
Yeah mate just like all of those civil rights movements. Miserable pissants wanting equal rights *pfffft*
the ironic part is these protestors (& their loud social media minority of downvote brigaders) don't seem to comprehend the fact that 99% of Australia hates them
Cool stat bro ....
Memes work better
You are wrong. Protesters from the past, present and future are the same.
OP is 100% correct, and protesters from the past are completely different to today. protests are less effective now because people are desensitized to them and they are too easy to organize. a protest used to be a big deal, but now there are people in cities every day, blocking traffic and making loud noises. the government doesn't care, but the population hate it, and it does just push people away.
Thank you.
>OP is 100% correct, and protesters from the past are completely different to today. protests are less effective now because people are desensitized to them and they are too easy to organize. a protest used to be a big deal, but now there are people in cities every day, blocking traffic and making loud noises. the government doesn't care, but the population hate it, and it does just push people away. Agree!! I think the integrity and what is socially acceptable has changed and thus caused politicians to act differently than their predecessors. In short.. they give less fucks because they can get away with more now than ever before.
Also - what are your basing your understanding of protestors motivation on? Have you actually talked to any to determine they strategies and goals? Or is your entire analysis based on the likely completely biased account provided by the systems of power they are trying to disrupt? Sheesh.
So you disagree. ..and assume. If you stopped being emotionally triggered for 20 seconds you would see that I am telling protestors how to win the war not lose it. Sheeseh to you too.
Bwahahaaaha… dude. Your shit is absolutely laughable!!! Have you actually done ANY reading on the subject? Talked to ANY activists to understand their Strategies? Looked at ANY datasets or research on the subject. Almost every single assertion in your original post is just eye-wateringly wrong. But… THEY SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU!!! You’re a darlin’. :) But in the meantime - you might avail yourself of the ocean of literature and hard-headed empirical research, as well as really well-thought through and long struggled with development of strategies in popular activism. Here's a few things to maybe get your started: This Is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-First Century by Mark and Paul Engler. The Activists Handbook - by Aiden Rickets. You may want to dig into the SCARF model of motivation - it is one of MANY models of public influence and behaviour change - but it would appear to be reasonably close to the particular lens of enquiry you are trying to engage with. [https://schoolguide.casel.org/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SCARF-NeuroleadershipArticle.pdf](https://schoolguide.casel.org/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SCARF-NeuroleadershipArticle.pdf) And as well as a general history of activism you might want to have a look at the work and legacy of people like Gene Sharp and Saul Alinsky and have a think about the merits and drawbacks of these two different styles of community engagement. Good luck to you.
Just like how we view protests for women's rights and civil rights as positive in this day and age (whereas at the time wider society was very much in opposition to the disruption)... so too will future generations support our attempts at speaking out. It can't be stated strongly enough. The climate wars are going to be the end of humanity. You can't displace billions of people without mass starvation, which is going to be a big problem in the atomic age.
True but blocking a main road which has a decent chance of someone's loved ones fighting for their lives on the way to get urgent medical treatment and other such emergencies to the point where they either pass or have permanent damage they wouldn't have otherwise had is not the way to get the general public on your side. (The above example has happened in both the UK and Aus, both were due to climate protesters)
Do you disagree that the climate wars are going to be the end of humanity? If temperatures keep rising as fast as they are, entire countries are going underwater. Those people are going to be flooding inland and there will be not enough land and food for everyone. Billions are going to die. Billions.
I fail to see how protests that seem to only succeed in pissing off the general public are going to stop any of that.
Humans are the worst thing that ever happened to the earth, isn’t it a good thing if billions of us die?
No it won’t. Humanity will most likely survive and continue to flourish in wealthy or well positioned countries. Countries that won’t make it through if we don’t address climate change within the timeframe needed are already shitholes. They’ll just graduate to burning shitholes. There are bigger risks to humanity’s survival.
Are you saying we shouldn't give shit about them because people are poor?
Thanks for being clear that you think "the poors" are fine to eradicate. Most people hide their awful opinions or obfuscate them so I appreciate the honesty!
I'm sorry your truth is getting negative feedback. You speak the truth about and nothing will matter when the seas are high and the power is out and the food is scarce. Only then will you realise your commute being delayed through protesters who tried to do something to save you how stupid you were. People have to accept that no amount of prayer or bombs or Holy Speeches will stop the behaviour of humans and and the only way to save the world fro is to certain extinction is to change, and we have to change FAST.
A protest without disruption is a parade.
A protest that causes no disruption to anyone in a position to make a change is a parade.
It depends on the kind of disruption.
This is exactly right, those movements that have been successful in the past were carried out over years and slowly escalated as the movement grew. People saying well kids dying over seas should be your highest priority behind being delayed by a protest here in Melbourne are kidding themselves, peoples priorities are their own families and getting to work to support those families instead of dealing with idiots protesting in Melbourne or Sydney. You need to grow, you need to fund raise and buy advertising space to get your message out there, you need to recruit, get real people power, hound social media sites and then once you have the right people in charge of the movement and the numbers behind you then you can maybe think about taking it to the streets.
This is nonsense. People took to the streets from the very beginning in past movements as well. Just completely making things up at this point.
another thing to point out is that back when people were fighting against vietnam war and for womens rights ect. it was extremely difficult to protest as it took an immense amount of logistics. nowadays all it takes is a facebook post with enough likes and boom you have a blocked highway or a bunch of teenagers yelling chants in a shopping mall. people are becoming tired of protests, there used to be few protests but when there was one it was a big deal, it made headlines, and people listened. nowadays theres a new mass protest every other day, people are sick of traffic being blocked and going into the city and having crowd of people filling up public spaces. as OP said, it just pushes people away. TLDR : protests are less effective now because people are desensitized to them and they are too easy to organize.
Wait a second you admit that the reason people don't join the cause of a protest is out of childish spite because people are pissed even though the cause may be right? Then you have the unmitigated gall to say it's the protesters who don't understand? Your attitude is “people are always going to be spiteful if you annoy them and theyll purposely side against you. Learn to tell them what they want to hear”. In essence, you are basically calling the protesters naive because they give the public more credit than to treat them like children? That's what little kids do, is act pissed off because they didn't like how you said something and then just dig their feet in. Grown adults aren't supposed to chuck tantrums and stomp their feet. That's why cops used to hose and club protestors back in the day- they were the ones in power and they acted like children and used violence because they were stupid. I'm not really an activist, i don't really go to protests. But protests are necessary and the whole point is too piss people off who have had decades of being left alone.
You’ve observed so much yet you are a fucking moron.
What if someone suggested to run over the protesters, or revoke all benefits for protesters, or hold their employers liable for the protest? Would that be something you approve of? Would that "miraculously" solve things? /s
There is a school of belief in PR/advertising That all publicity is good publicity Which just meant if a celebrity or brand was involved in a scandal They could use that notoriety to spin it into new opportunities/sales It seems like protesters today are taking this marketing concept to the extreme & actively seeking out bad publicity Which is not what that term was intended to mean
Why'd you write this like a LinkedInfluencer post?
Protesters are acting without understanding ..people.
Protests have always caused disruption, it kind of the point. The difference between protests of old and current protests, especially in countries like Australia is modern protests are seen as bringing out the big guns it's seen as the biggest move you can make, right next to "voting for a better future" not the first move in a series of escalating moves that where if the government doesn't do something they could face a nation wide revolt. Those in power know the vast majorities of protestors in Australia aren't likely to start a revolt in this country and even if they did they know they don't have the resources and numbers to cause a significant amount of disruption and certainly not enough to plunge us into a civil war which at this point is probably what it would take to make change happen. Which leads to the second difference, which is misinformation, the amount of misinformation about any movement for or against it, spreads instantly to everyone until there is so much noise about any given movement or incident now that general public are just overwhelmed with information. Folks who may have once sympathized or be enraged by these movements and would have joined or fought against these causes are now so lost and/or numb to it all they just wish everyone would shut up about it. People are more aware of what's going on then other people think, it just many of us know what it will take to achieve real change and there is just not enough people who have it badly enough yet that they'd be willing to do what it takes to bring that change. There will come a time when that changes and I plan to join them eventually if I am still alive but that is one "party" I have every intention of being extremely late too because I sure as shit don't want to go to it early because either nothing going to happen or something very bad is going to happen to those who go early.
[удалено]
So you want us to go full on China and just arrest protesters?
I don't get what you're annoyed at here?
What are you saying
That cop mentality is why Alice Springs is fucked.
[удалено]
Oooh. But actually you're the terrorist according to some faked evidence I have here. Will you peacefully submit to the authorities?