Two points: If protestors only performed actions were that were permitted and convenient, then the general population could easily ignore the protestors and whatever issue they're protesting....
Two points:
If protestors only performed actions were that were permitted and convenient, then the general population could easily ignore the protestors and whatever issue they're protesting. Therefore a protest must be defiant and inconvenience the general population.
Protests can turn the population against your cause, so they shouldn't take actions that inconvenience the general population. Therefore protests should make a lot of noise at an approved time and place.
To a certain extent, both points are true. A balance must be struck between the two in order to maximize progress towards the desired outcome. The balancing point is probably different in every situation and is likely very difficult to find. In my opinion, PETA is off balance and are ignoring point two. They have successfully made people aware of the issue, but have gone too far. Anyone who is sympathetic to their cause can be considered a weirdo by the general population, which likely limits their ability to attract new activists or supporters.
Or that target people whom it's difficult to blame. And activists going far from their own communities also doesn't help. There was an occupation of a pig farm a while back here in The...
Protests can turn the population against your cause, so they shouldn't take actions that inconvenience the general population.
Or that target people whom it's difficult to blame. And activists going far from their own communities also doesn't help. There was an occupation of a pig farm a while back here in The Netherlands, with a lot of foreign activists, and targeting a random farmer who is scraping by and doesn't have that much choice to raise and treat his animals the way he does (apart from giving up his business or putting in lots of energy and capital to transform it). The net effect was strongly negative in terms of sympathy for the animal rights movement.
I'm all for completely dismantling industrial agro, but even I felt for the poor farmer and thought 'who are these people and why protest in someone else's country?'
Two points:
If protestors only performed actions were that were permitted and convenient, then the general population could easily ignore the protestors and whatever issue they're protesting. Therefore a protest must be defiant and inconvenience the general population.
Protests can turn the population against your cause, so they shouldn't take actions that inconvenience the general population. Therefore protests should make a lot of noise at an approved time and place.
To a certain extent, both points are true. A balance must be struck between the two in order to maximize progress towards the desired outcome. The balancing point is probably different in every situation and is likely very difficult to find. In my opinion, PETA is off balance and are ignoring point two. They have successfully made people aware of the issue, but have gone too far. Anyone who is sympathetic to their cause can be considered a weirdo by the general population, which likely limits their ability to attract new activists or supporters.
Or that target people whom it's difficult to blame. And activists going far from their own communities also doesn't help. There was an occupation of a pig farm a while back here in The Netherlands, with a lot of foreign activists, and targeting a random farmer who is scraping by and doesn't have that much choice to raise and treat his animals the way he does (apart from giving up his business or putting in lots of energy and capital to transform it). The net effect was strongly negative in terms of sympathy for the animal rights movement.
I'm all for completely dismantling industrial agro, but even I felt for the poor farmer and thought 'who are these people and why protest in someone else's country?'