[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.