Cars were stopped and chains were used to block traffic lanes on the famous bridge. Protesters also blocked traffic in Chicago, New York City and Seattle.
But come now, certainly you must recognize that that’s not even close to causation. Just because it’s done often doesn’t even come close to meaning that there’s any proof that it functions as you state.
If I carry a “rock of tiger repellent” and tell you that I’ve never been attacked by a tiger, therefore it must work, it’s the same logic.
Countries that do not (or rarely) have highway blockades have more civil rights or had them earlier than the US did. They also have stronger protections and aren’t helping bomb Gaza. Using the logic stated by you, that may actually mean that highway protests make things worse.
Again, just because it agrees with you politically, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. There’s no study or data indicating that it functions, and scads of loose polls and information saying it doesn’t (which are only slightly better than no evidence at all). I’d encourage an actual study, but judging by every thread I’ve ever seen on the issue, the only people claiming to be even minutely swayed by these demonstrations were people already on the side of the protesters.
Street protests generally carried out in front of royal palaces or civic structures where those in power worked had an impact, yes. NOT protests at a random road in town.
I am factually correct here.
I have never stated that protests aren’t effective when carried out well. I’ve stated that these road blocking protests aren’t effective because they do not target.
It’s a very small percentage of people that can even do a street priest in front of a royal palace. You don’t just jump to that. That’s what all the other street protesting is about.
It’s been the primary mode of protesting in the US for 70 years and the issues poll better over time.
But come now, certainly you must recognize that that’s not even close to causation. Just because it’s done often doesn’t even come close to meaning that there’s any proof that it functions as you state.
If I carry a “rock of tiger repellent” and tell you that I’ve never been attacked by a tiger, therefore it must work, it’s the same logic.
Countries that do not (or rarely) have highway blockades have more civil rights or had them earlier than the US did. They also have stronger protections and aren’t helping bomb Gaza. Using the logic stated by you, that may actually mean that highway protests make things worse.
Again, just because it agrees with you politically, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. There’s no study or data indicating that it functions, and scads of loose polls and information saying it doesn’t (which are only slightly better than no evidence at all). I’d encourage an actual study, but judging by every thread I’ve ever seen on the issue, the only people claiming to be even minutely swayed by these demonstrations were people already on the side of the protesters.
You should really go look at how they got those rights. You’re going to find street protests. Nobody got rights by politely asking for them.
Street protests generally carried out in front of royal palaces or civic structures where those in power worked had an impact, yes. NOT protests at a random road in town.
I am factually correct here.
I have never stated that protests aren’t effective when carried out well. I’ve stated that these road blocking protests aren’t effective because they do not target.
It’s a very small percentage of people that can even do a street priest in front of a royal palace. You don’t just jump to that. That’s what all the other street protesting is about.