Of course, but the metric you choose for “effectiveness” is critical. In the current situation the metric must be “removal from office”.
Comment on Why does it feel like protesting isn't as "extreme" as it used to be?
mapto@feddit.it 3 weeks ago
But should it be extreme? I reckon it should be effective instead. Whether effective means awareness, resignations or something else is a conversation that varies a lot from context to context.
wewbull@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
mapto@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
The beauty of pluralism is that it allows for different means (and metrics) of achieving a goal.
And I’m saying this as someone coming from a post-communist country where totalitarianism is the powerful position.
Valmond@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yeah, better not disturbe anyone when you are doing your awareness “protests”…
ahornsirup@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Those do work better. Antagonising the people whose support you rely on to effect change is a horrible strategy, the more of a disturbance protests cause to the average person, the less likely said average person is to be supportive.
Montagge@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I was mad that the government was disappearing people, but then a protest made it so I couldn’t drive where I wanted to.
ahornsirup@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
That’s a vast oversimplification of the thought process and emotions that’s going on there and an extremely uncharitable one at that (most people have their own lives to worry about, it’s usually less “I can’t drive where I want to” and more “I have to get to work”), but essentially yes. That’s the reality you have to work with.
mapto@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
I’d claim that it should not be about “anyone”. It should be targeted. If you are to “disturb” someone, better do this intentionally and with the clear idea what such disturbance is meant to achieve.
I’m not saying you should stand still. I’m saying that you should think before (and after) you act. Wouldn’t hurt too much, would it?