Yeah, that’s kinda my point: How the hell is the oil industry being inconvenienced by obstructing traffic?
What they are accomplishing by standing in the street is convincing the general public to make jaywalking a felony.
What they are doing is illegal; they clearly don’t have a problem violating the law to achieve their goals. That doesn’t bother me so much; civil disobedience is a cornerstone of civic action. What pisses me off is that they are targeting victims of the oil industry, rather than the perpetrators.
If they insist on taking illegal actions, there are plenty they could take without targeting victims. The could rob gas stations or muffler shops, for example. They could threaten to torch new ICE cars on dealer lots. That would force them to hire overnight security, and would raise the insurance rates on every ICE car dealer.
Target the fucking oil industries, and stay the fuck out of the roads.
The last time an ICE car dealership was torched in connection with a protest was four years ago in Kenosha, and it wasn’t even for environmental activism.
Muffler shops are only necessary for ICE vehicles; When has a muffler shop ever been involved in a protest?
Many states have emission testing requirements for ICE cars; when have testing facilities ever been targeted by environmental protesters?
JSO could immediately increase the costs of doing business to ICE dealerships, (and gain notoriety), simply by writing letters to ICE dealerships demanding that they put only electric vehicles on display.
Unfortunately, the same poll showed that the protest did not have any measurable effect on feelings about the radical group, or climate policy
So, people didn’t change the way they see the protesters, didn’t support their cause any bit more, but were more sympathetic to people that protested in a less disruptive way (without actually agreeing with them).
If you want to call this a win, ok, but it’s a really tiny one.
I didn’t say that the protests like this make massive measurable positive effect. You claimed they had negative impacts on what the protestors wanted to achieve. Which according to this single study was incorrect in this instance, and in fact it may help the more moderate protestors.
Dude, you are replying to my first post on the conversation.
Anyway, that one study is about a very widely known cause. People don’t change their minds about those easily, neither for supporting nor for opposing it. Also, beware of social studies that find tiny effects.
I think the road might be a better option than those last two. They’re private property, which gives cops an excuse to beat up protesters for trespassing and refusing to comply.
The only valid metric to measure against is their stated intent. Harassing the general public is only a “better option” if their intention is to stiffen the laws against jaywalking, as that is the only effect they have managed to achieve.
They could always protest on the sidewalk. My point was to say that any protest on private property would be short-lived and more akin to a public beating than an actual protest.
Protests must cause inconvenience or they are simply ignored.
Yeah, that’s kinda my point: How the hell is the oil industry being inconvenienced by obstructing traffic?
What they are accomplishing by standing in the street is convincing the general public to make jaywalking a felony.
What they are doing is illegal; they clearly don’t have a problem violating the law to achieve their goals. That doesn’t bother me so much; civil disobedience is a cornerstone of civic action. What pisses me off is that they are targeting victims of the oil industry, rather than the perpetrators.
If they insist on taking illegal actions, there are plenty they could take without targeting victims. The could rob gas stations or muffler shops, for example. They could threaten to torch new ICE cars on dealer lots. That would force them to hire overnight security, and would raise the insurance rates on every ICE car dealer.
Target the fucking oil industries, and stay the fuck out of the roads.
Not all protests are against oil companies.
Obstructing general traffic is only a valid form of protest if your cause is “increase the penalties for jaywalking” or “general misanthropy”.
Oil companies get targeted all the time, but it’s mostly the protests that affect many people that make it to the news
The last time an ICE car dealership was torched in connection with a protest was four years ago in Kenosha, and it wasn’t even for environmental activism.
Muffler shops are only necessary for ICE vehicles; When has a muffler shop ever been involved in a protest?
Many states have emission testing requirements for ICE cars; when have testing facilities ever been targeted by environmental protesters?
JSO could immediately increase the costs of doing business to ICE dealerships, (and gain notoriety), simply by writing letters to ICE dealerships demanding that they put only electric vehicles on display.
They are still ignored, or turn the population away from your propositions.
There is evidence to suggest that you are wrong
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-disruptive-protests-fringe-groups-moderate.html
A bit of a long shot, isn’t it:
So, people didn’t change the way they see the protesters, didn’t support their cause any bit more, but were more sympathetic to people that protested in a less disruptive way (without actually agreeing with them).
If you want to call this a win, ok, but it’s a really tiny one.
I didn’t say that the protests like this make massive measurable positive effect. You claimed they had negative impacts on what the protestors wanted to achieve. Which according to this single study was incorrect in this instance, and in fact it may help the more moderate protestors.
Dude, you are replying to my first post on the conversation.
Anyway, that one study is about a very widely known cause. People don’t change their minds about those easily, neither for supporting nor for opposing it. Also, beware of social studies that find tiny effects.
It only takes 3.5% of the population to peacefully protest and create change.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
So, in actually, your sentiment is factually incorrect.
They have had more success convincing governments to increase the penalties for jaywalking.
They would have better results picketing a gas station.
They’d have much better results targeting ICE cars on dealer lots.
I think the road might be a better option than those last two. They’re private property, which gives cops an excuse to beat up protesters for trespassing and refusing to comply.
The only valid metric to measure against is their stated intent. Harassing the general public is only a “better option” if their intention is to stiffen the laws against jaywalking, as that is the only effect they have managed to achieve.
They could always protest on the sidewalk. My point was to say that any protest on private property would be short-lived and more akin to a public beating than an actual protest.