• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    95 months ago

    The media and people in general ignore non-disruptive protest. When protesting pollution, bringing motor vehicles to a halt is arguably a pretty good choice compared to, say, the stone henge (which I don’t have a problem with either). Whether the optics are good is debatable. The media is mostly corporate owned, and they’ll try to make any protest that goes against their interests look bad anyways. Which is probably why they only cover disruptive protests.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      25 months ago

      True. So the most appropriate solution would be for JSO to perform a LIMITED disruptive protest. This would - and we know because it did - hit the papers and everyone would know about it, spreading the message, and aside from those directly affected would gain them a lot of support.

      But then you stop. You’ve done what you needed to. The message is out there, people are talking and thinking about it. And writing to their MPs to express support. And changing the nation’s direction via legitimate democratic process.

      This is where JSO went so badly wrong. They didn’t/wouldn’t stop. They kept on disrupting the lives of those around them. They kept ignoring complaints from the public and warnings from the police. They went on to chuck paint at artwork, snooker tables and Stonehenge*. By becoming a bunch of complete and utter wankmuppets they have destroyed any public support they might have had and are now little more than environmental terrorists.

      *Yeah I know the details, decomposable powder blah blah. The point is: NOBODY CARES. The only response they get now is “oh no not fucking JSO again”.