[bluescrn]

Whatever you think of autonomous vehicles, we should not continue to normalise maximally disruptive acts of protest by tiny groups.

Serious protest should involve serious people power, not just a handful of radicals aiming for maximum disruptive impact (usually knowing they'll face zero consequences for it, and may well turn more people against their cause, e.g 'Just Stop Oil' in the UK)

[giraffe_lady]

"Only protest if you have a clear majority or your protest isn't disruptive." Denies both the reason and mechanism for protests. Which I realize is probably exactly the point and I don't accept it.

[asadotzler]

Yeah, these "your protest isn't they way I want you to protest because it inconveniences me and my goal is to not be inconvenienced" is not really gonna land the way the speaker hopes.

[jacobsenscott]

maximally disruptive would be to douse the cars in gasoline and light them on fire. This is just some lulz.

[bluescrn]

Disruptive != Destrucive.

But when you screw around with transport infrastructure, you may be putting lives at risk if emergency vehicles are held up in completely unnecessary traffic jams.

[yetanotherloser]

Ditto if you cross the road. I think this is fine. Arguably the AVs are the source of the disruption anyway, since a human piloted vehicle would cope.

[AirMax98]

Feel like it is also a handful of radicals that want this unproven tech on the streets.

[JohnFen]

> we should not continue to normalise maximally disruptive acts of protest by tiny groups.

The majority of the time, it's groups doing things like this that lead directly toward what you're calling "serious protests".

[oh_sigh]

Which does not imply that any group using those tactics will lead to "serious protests".

[JohnFen]

True! There are no guarantees. But every effective protest movement that I'm aware of started with a handful of people doing things that get a lot of attention.

Without such groups, nothing would ever really happen. There's an enormous power differential here, and theatrics like this is one of the few ways available to help level the playing field.

[oh_sigh]

You should research the Montgomery bus boycotts then. Perhaps the most effective boycott in US history, and the only people it inconvenienced were the very people doing the boycotting.

[JohnFen]

True, although given the social situation at the time, those actions were just as transgressive as actively inconveniencing people.

I guess, really, my point is a bit broader than "inconveniencing". What seems necessary is attention-getting theatrics that actively angers those who want to maintain the status quo, and the Montgomery bus boycotts were absolutely that.

[Fricken]

"...we should not continue to normalise maximally disruptive acts of protest by tiny groups."

In this case the argument works both ways.