• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    And maybe, just maybe, the protesters should have a goal of not only getting their message out but winning people over to their side. Maybe a goal of gaining support.

    I don’t think this strategy of “annoy as many people as you can” will succeed in gaining any positive attention

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think this strategy of “annoy as many people as you can” will succeed in gaining any positive attention

      It’s literally the only strategy that has ever worked before, other than outright violence.

      After all, who gives a shit about “positive attention” for its own sake? What matters is actually effecting change, and that does not require people to like you.

        • retrieval4558
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lunch counter sit ins in the 1960s are the first thing that came to mind.

            • Sage the Lawyer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The Civil Rights Act was passed in large part because of it. Is your argument that the Civil Rights Act changed nothing? Because that’s silly. Or were you just not thinking, and trying to score internet points? Because that’s also silly. You’re being silly.

    • dustout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if you want to make a movement lose support? Could you then do this as a tactic to hurt a cause?