LogFAQs > #981454812

Protests aren't some heavily centralized activity done to support or condemn something orchestrated to maximize persuasiveness, but that is how they are treated. Its always "protestors did X thing and now they've killed their entire argument!" as if protests were a form of argument. Its a very silly way to view them that doesn't really conform to reality.

What protests actually are, is an outlet for anger on a specific issue, particularly ones that feel like they have no legitimate political outlet like voting. Protests are a consequence, not a choice.

No one really likes protests. They make everyone uncomfortable. They can persuade people in exactly one way, which is to make a situation so embarrassing for politicians that they have to change course, but people act like they are designed to persuade the average citizen instead, which is super weird, because how would they even do that? Some guy blocked my road so now I support Palestine? They are inconvenient for everyone.

But in spite of this fact, that if we could choose to be inconvenienced by protests or not most people would choose to not be, they aren't something that can be controlled, because ultimately, people need an outlet for their political frustrations, and when you are given two candidates who often agree on whatever issue you are frustrated about, or at least appear to, voting can never really be that outlet. Like, the other outlets besides voting and protests are more violent and destructive in America, we see what happens when the people who are frustrated to the point of action can't really even gather up a small cadre of people to complain in public, terrorism.