Cars were stopped and chains were used to block traffic lanes on the famous bridge. Protesters also blocked traffic in Chicago, New York City and Seattle.
I don’t think the goal is to convince the people stuck in the artificially created traffic about Gaza. I think it’s to get news coverage from sites like nbcnews.com so as to raise the profile of the Gaza war so that politicians must address it. You are welcome to argue whether that’s an effective strategy, but I think that’s the intent.
Also, side note… Social progress rarely comes from rule following.
Is the profile not high enough? I’m pretty sure everyone knows about it who needs to know about it. Blocking traffic isn’t going to make a ceasefire happen across the world. Annoying your fellow citizens and ruining their day isn’t getting any politicians to act. It’s pointless. Actions must be taken against those in charge if we want to see any forward progress. Blocking traffic to protest a war is like yelling at a frycook because you want the McRib back. The actions are being aimed at the wrong people.
counterpoint: the people who would enact this change are far beyond our reach as citizens so there is no way to target them with effective protests.
Besides, some of the best way to affect policy is to A. Cost large businesses money or B. To cause general unrest over an issue. Both of these things will piss your fellow American off but this is how protests work nowadays.
I think most protestors don’t want to block cars of normal people or throw paint onto paintings or whatever. But they have to because if you look at the laws, organized protest has no bite anymore. Go ahead, annoy the politicians, they’ll just arrest your outside of their house and no one will hear about your issue.
That’s the problem. No one is actually doing anything worthwhile. You are right, standing outside the mayors house will get you arrested. Do it anyway. Get arrested. You want to make big moves for your cause, do something worth being arrested over. Imagine if all of those people on the bridge yesterday had been blocking traffic to the mayors neighborhood instead. What are they gonna do, arrest a thousand people in a suburb street? That’s a fucking news story. Blocking a bridge is bullshit, it carries no weight because there is nothing on the line. Congrats, you fucked up a half million people’s day, I guess someone should call the genocide off, now.
What do you mean it carries no weight? That was my entire point. Make the public mad, the angry public starts yelling at the mayor. The business owners whose workers can’t get to the office start getting rather upset. Whereas if a minority inconvenience a politician, cool, but they don’t care. They will just find ways to avoid it. And in this case, you don’t have access to politicians that hold weight in regard to Gaza.
Go ahead, egg your senators house, they don’t live there most of the time. Threaten to vote them out, they run unopposed. The ways in which to express political efforts is now so narrow that stuff like blocking a bridge has become almost inevitable.
They won’t do that because they can and will get an armed response from three-letter agencies and LEOs. It’s the same reason these absolute clowns never protest where the weapons are made and shipped from, they’ll get beaten and shot, and they know it, so instead they harass everyone else.
Seriously! Protesting has never accomplished anything ever and is totally useless unless it’s done explicitly for politicians that are totally receptive and eager to assist their constituents!
It’s about the public discourse. If an issue (e.g. the U.S. giving Israel weapons and enabling their war) disappears from the headlines, it’s much easier for politicians to ignore it. But if the issue keeps coming up, politicians feel pressure to act–or they risk getting voted out of office. Especially during an election year.
I don’t think the goal is to convince the people stuck in the artificially created traffic about Gaza. I think it’s to get news coverage from sites like nbcnews.com so as to raise the profile of the Gaza war so that politicians must address it. You are welcome to argue whether that’s an effective strategy, but I think that’s the intent.
Also, side note… Social progress rarely comes from rule following.
Is the profile not high enough? I’m pretty sure everyone knows about it who needs to know about it. Blocking traffic isn’t going to make a ceasefire happen across the world. Annoying your fellow citizens and ruining their day isn’t getting any politicians to act. It’s pointless. Actions must be taken against those in charge if we want to see any forward progress. Blocking traffic to protest a war is like yelling at a frycook because you want the McRib back. The actions are being aimed at the wrong people.
counterpoint: the people who would enact this change are far beyond our reach as citizens so there is no way to target them with effective protests.
Besides, some of the best way to affect policy is to A. Cost large businesses money or B. To cause general unrest over an issue. Both of these things will piss your fellow American off but this is how protests work nowadays.
I think most protestors don’t want to block cars of normal people or throw paint onto paintings or whatever. But they have to because if you look at the laws, organized protest has no bite anymore. Go ahead, annoy the politicians, they’ll just arrest your outside of their house and no one will hear about your issue.
That’s the problem. No one is actually doing anything worthwhile. You are right, standing outside the mayors house will get you arrested. Do it anyway. Get arrested. You want to make big moves for your cause, do something worth being arrested over. Imagine if all of those people on the bridge yesterday had been blocking traffic to the mayors neighborhood instead. What are they gonna do, arrest a thousand people in a suburb street? That’s a fucking news story. Blocking a bridge is bullshit, it carries no weight because there is nothing on the line. Congrats, you fucked up a half million people’s day, I guess someone should call the genocide off, now.
What do you mean it carries no weight? That was my entire point. Make the public mad, the angry public starts yelling at the mayor. The business owners whose workers can’t get to the office start getting rather upset. Whereas if a minority inconvenience a politician, cool, but they don’t care. They will just find ways to avoid it. And in this case, you don’t have access to politicians that hold weight in regard to Gaza.
Go ahead, egg your senators house, they don’t live there most of the time. Threaten to vote them out, they run unopposed. The ways in which to express political efforts is now so narrow that stuff like blocking a bridge has become almost inevitable.
I do not think we live in the same world, where someone being late to their job will make the business owner consider political change.
Literally go to the capitols instead. Or go to their houses. Some place that actually effects them rather than complete laymen.
They won’t do that because they can and will get an armed response from three-letter agencies and LEOs. It’s the same reason these absolute clowns never protest where the weapons are made and shipped from, they’ll get beaten and shot, and they know it, so instead they harass everyone else.
Seriously! Protesting has never accomplished anything ever and is totally useless unless it’s done explicitly for politicians that are totally receptive and eager to assist their constituents!
Right… because the global leaders of the world aren’t already aware of what’s going on. Thanks for raising awareness, guys.
It’s about the public discourse. If an issue (e.g. the U.S. giving Israel weapons and enabling their war) disappears from the headlines, it’s much easier for politicians to ignore it. But if the issue keeps coming up, politicians feel pressure to act–or they risk getting voted out of office. Especially during an election year.