Which method of protesting is better?

[lfromnj]

Two types of protests that have happened in the past few months concerning Palestine

[Upper Canada Tory]

How about not having a sense of entitlement and instead, following the law and accepted norms and standards when you protest?

[progressive85]

Blocking a bridge is a HORRIBLE way to protest anything.

Setting yourself on fire just takes out another person that would be alive to support your cause.  It's stupid, and you die.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Whatever works (and for that matter works long term, rather than a short term response of panicked politicians reacting quickly). Arguably both have worked to an extent in living memory.

How about not having a sense of entitlement and instead, following the law and accepted norms and standards when you protest?

I think this is wrong and you could easily bring in hundreds of counterexamples of "people breaking accepted standards" in an effective manner. Good example is the sit-in movement, because the photos of white southerners acting like a bunch of barbarians to normal black people at a diner may have seemed normal to someone inoculated in jim crow ideology, most everybody outside of their inane society entirely sympathised with the black people.

In general, it is best to at least muse on how the "general public" will take things. It isn't the end-all, and there are plenty of protests (e.g. farmers spreading crap everywhere, rail strikes) that piss everybody off but can work if you don't overplay your hand.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Both depend on the way in which they are done, though I tend to believe self-immulation is a horrible thing.

Blocking bridges has a lot of possibilities depending on if it's a bridge with heavy traffic or if it's more of a symbolic bridge (like Brooklyn Bridge). If you're blocking traffic, people are going to become angry at you and less likely to support your cause, but if you can set up the protest right, I think a bridge protest could be effective.

[Dr. MB]

How about not having a sense of entitlement and instead, following the law and accepted norms and standards when you protest?

I mean usually the goal of a protest is to cause some sort of disruption. Otherwise it just amounts to a parade

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Better in what sense?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's contextual.

[wnwnwn]

Not killing self

[AtorBoltox]

How about not having a sense of entitlement and instead, following the law and accepted norms and standards when you protest?

I mean usually the goal of a protest is to cause some sort of disruption. Otherwise it just amounts to a parade

But shouldn't it be to disrupt the entities actually responsible for whatever is being protested? The protest movements of today seem to have no sense of tactics, timing or common sense, and are happy instead to just smugly mouth vague platitudes about 'disruption' in response to any criticism.

[dead0man]

the one that only negatively affects one person (and their family I suppose, but it's probably for the best in the long run...if you're stupid enough to set your self on fire for "the cause" you're likely stupid enough to hurt your family in many other ways too)

[Del Tachi]

I would think the occupation of physical space is the bare minimum of a protest action. 

[Lambsbread]

Protests are supposed to be memorable. They're supposed to be inconvenient. No one is going to pay attention to a few people standing on a street corner holding signs. Blocking bridges and self immolation and property damage (even though I don't agree with those last 2 tactics personally) are all methods of drawing attention to the cause. For better or worse, and as long as no one outside of the protest is injured in the process, those tactics are effective.

Regardless of the cause, the goal of a protest should be to open a dialogue. Even if a bunch of 2nd amendment people blocked a bridge to protest a bill proposal that I may personally agree with, I respect their right to do so.

Some people feel passionately enough to kill themselves to draw attention to an issue. That's their choice and mocking them and calling them mentally ill in the wake of that decision is unnecessary.

[dead0man]

yeah guys, the only way to inform people about global warming is by standing in the road, making thousands of cars idle.

[AtorBoltox]

I'm going to start protesting elderly people's funerals. It'll be memorable and cause 'disruption,' and that is how environmentalism will win.

[HisGrace]

Option 1 inconveniences my commute, Option 2 means there's one less terrorist supporting idiot in the world. So definitely Option 2. Didn't really participate in the self immolation threads because I'm not going to go to any trouble to get these losers not to light themselves on fire.

[Sir Mohamed]

Both are stupid.

[Rat]

I'd prefer neither is used.

[dead0man]

it's a stupid method of protesting but it's awfully funny watching regular jerks manhandle adult toddlers...question though, why do all/most of the protestors have this dead look to their face?  Almost like they took sedatives before going out?  Look at this lot

one or two are smiling and talking, but most of them just look sad and defeated, and this is before the crowds start forming, it's just one guy giving them the business and a few of them are just dead eyed.  Obviously many of them are just mentally ill, and that will explain most of the dumb looking faces, but somebody has to be in charge right?  Thirty mentally ill people aren't going to come up with a schedule, that takes an outside mind, a mind smart enough not to sit in traffic.  What are the odds they are being run by a group of people who don't care about the environment and are just suggesting poor protesting tactics like this just to make them look stupid?