[dfabulich]

It's a protest. Protests work. For example, this paper used rainfall as a source of exogenous variation to measure the effect of the Tea Party protests.

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/128/4/1633/184...

Can protests cause political change, or are they merely symptoms of underlying shifts in policy preferences? We address this question by studying the Tea Party movement in the United States, which rose to prominence through coordinated rallies across the country on Tax Day, April 15, 2009. We exploit variation in rainfall on the day of these rallies as an exogenous source of variation in attendance. We show that good weather at this initial, coordinating event had significant consequences for the subsequent local strength of the movement, increased public support for Tea Party positions, and led to more Republican votes in the 2010 midterm elections. Policy making was also affected, as incumbents responded to large protests in their district by voting more conservatively in Congress. Our estimates suggest significant multiplier effects: an additional protester increased the number of Republican votes by a factor well above 1. Together our results show that protests can build political movements that ultimately affect policy making and that they do so by influencing political views rather than solely through the revelation of existing political preferences.

[indubitable]

Whether protests work, or do not work, in one instance can not be used as a blind support or condemnation of protest in general. What ultimately matters is the message, the means, and most importantly - the public response. For instance I think the Occupy protests did a phenomenal job here of spreading their message. One measure of their success might be this [1] Google trends on "the 1%" result. As typical there was a brief spike of interest but even once the protests had ended, they seem to have left a clear and growing impression on society. There's always a question of whether they were a cause of this change, or an effect of an already existent change in society but in either case I think it's some evidence of success.

So back to this specific protest and type of protest, what are the goals of these protests? What change do they hope to effect? What exactly are they protesting? These protests have become incredibly divisive even among the very demographic that they presumably are seeking to unite and inform. Personally to me liberalism has always meant emphasizing the value of free speech -- including speech I vehemently disagree with, never resorting to violence or intimidation to convey a message, and an understanding that though democracy will on occasion produce undesirable results, it is far superior to the alternative. Somebody recently linked Russell Bertrand's 'Ten Commandments of Critical Thinking and Democratic Decency' [2] which I think falls very much in line with my worldview. Nonetheless, the democratic party seems to be moving in way such that views as these are no longer within the zeitgeist. Perhaps, again, the protests are an effect and not a cause -- but I'd certainly be interested to hear how you see them being productive and valuable.

[1] - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=the%201%...

[2] - https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue...

[csomar]

There is a fine line between a peaceful protest/rally, a form of demonstration that I support; and blocking a road (which should be 100% unacceptable in any condition).

You understand that the road is being used by multiple people and sometimes for urgent and life-threatening reasons?

[nardi]

Your understanding of the term “peaceful protest” is flawed. Civil disobedience has always been one of the most effective tools of protesters. The best way to protest is to do something which cannot be ignored.

[zdkl]

I've been on the waiting end of an ambulance blocked by protesters. Not an experience I wish to repeat.

[csomar]

Again, your are making the same mistake. Civil disobedience is fine because no one should be forced to do something. Blocking a road is not civil disobedience.

People can protest by not showing up on stores, or maybe not paying taxes, or withdrawing their savings from their accounts. But blocking a road? That's annoying and endangering your fellow citizens and not the government.

[dragonwriter]

> Civil disobedience is fine because no one should be forced to do something.

Civil disobedience is not merely “refusing to do something” (the “disobedience” it refers to is to civil authority—the law—not merely some command to positive action.)

> Blocking a road is not civil disobedience.

Yes, it can be an element of civil disobedience.

> People can protest by not showing up on stores, or maybe not paying taxes, or withdrawing their savings from their accounts.

Yes, they can. They can also protest by blocking roads.

> But blocking a road? That's annoying and endangering your fellow citizens and not the government.

The government is the people. While this is theoretically the case in any regime professing democratic ideals, it's practically the case always and everywhere: government is simply whatever people choose to obey. But, even ignoring that, if you have a vote either directly on policy (as in any jurisdiction where citizens hold the powers of initiative and referendum) or on choosing the people who make policy (as in any jurisdiction with elected executive, judicial, and/or legislative officers), you are part of the government and legitimately targeted by campaigns, including civil disobedience, seeking to change that government’s action.

[wu-ikkyu]

>Blocking a road is not civil disobedience.

How would you define Dr. King's marches, then?

[Dylan16807]

Marches and sit-ins are pretty core tactics to peaceful protesting and civil disobedience.

[ionised]

So you are fine with protesting as long as the protesting doesn't get in the way, cause any commotion or inconvenience anyone, and you don't have to listen to or look at them.

Maybe protesters should all be sent out into the sticks so they can protest in peace.

[amigoingtodie]

So only private entities?

[hueving]

You're conflating a protest with a protest that involves breaking the law and risking peoples lives (blocking a road interferes with emergency services).

[blowski]

Oh come on. You’re suggesting that what their protesting _against_ doesn’t break the law and risk lives? I’m not a masssive supporter of the protests, but people’s right to protest is important, without silly limits.

[ionised]

Most social progress and civil rights have come from enough people deciding that civil disobedience and breaking certain laws was worth it in the end.

The trick is getting enough people onboard to do it.