That’s not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren’t important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn’t matter if they’re angry now. This isn’t about them.
Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.
On the other hand there isn’t a single form of protest that wouldn’t be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?
There it is. You want attention no matter if it’s positive or not. Which type of support do you expect to gather by vandalising monuments? Encourage public debate by vandalising monuments?
Normal protests, even if “angrier” would be better than this. Earn peoples’ trust and respect
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn’t spell it out for you.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch.
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn’t spell it out for you.
Yes I got that but my point still stands, and you’re still contradicting yourself.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch
So the people who go “I would have done something, but now that they painted stonehenge I won’t” will suddenly change their way when they see “normal protest” as you call them?
Suuuure. Keep telling yourself that. You’re not sounding ridiculous at all.
That’s not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren’t important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn’t matter if they’re angry now. This isn’t about them.
Ok so what is the tactic here? They are vandalising a monument for what end if not attention? Talk me through the reasoning
Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.
On the other hand there isn’t a single form of protest that wouldn’t be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?
deleted by creator
There it is. You want attention no matter if it’s positive or not. Which type of support do you expect to gather by vandalising monuments? Encourage public debate by vandalising monuments?
Normal protests, even if “angrier” would be better than this. Earn peoples’ trust and respect
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn’t spell it out for you.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch.
Yes I got that but my point still stands, and you’re still contradicting yourself.
You should read my last paragraph slower then.
So the people who go “I would have done something, but now that they painted stonehenge I won’t” will suddenly change their way when they see “normal protest” as you call them?
Suuuure. Keep telling yourself that. You’re not sounding ridiculous at all.