• VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you’re not disrupting anything, your protest will invariably be ignored.

    The “I support the right to protest as long as it doesn’t inconvenience anyone” reeks of a “negative peace” ploy to stifle dissent while appearing to be reasonable in the eyes of other Enlightened Centrist hypocrites.

      • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again, that’s bullshit. If they “disrupt pollution” by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that’s how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention.

        At a pro tennis event in Washington DC, on the other hand, the media is already there, peaceful protest isn’t called terrorism and due to the location, there’s an excellent chance that some of the very representatives who are standing in the way of climate action or at least someone from their inner circle are actually THERE.

        TL;DR: You seem to either have no clue what you’re talking about or be exactly like the negative peace demanders that held back MLK and his fight for justice.

        • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they “disrupt pollution” by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that’s how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention

          And there’s a reason that actual disruption is illegal, and performative nonsense carries lighter consequences. The reason is that oil companies absolutely LOVE for protests to be ineffectual and just cause disruptions among leftists. Obviously these “gluing myself to stuff” protests have NOT helped the environment. Nobody ever actually thought they would.