Disruptive protests especially when you don’t already have widespread support are dumb. The George Floyd protests only worked because there was widespread outcry throughout America. The people were already united on the same issue, and there was widespread agreement that immediate and radical change was necessary. Little to nobody gives enough of a shit about climate change at the moment to actually do anything about it, so protests only end up pushing away people that might be on your side.
The move should be to first garner massive and widespread support before being disruptive. It’s like attempting a socialist revolution with a tiny army. You lose!
Disruptive protests especially when you don’t already have widespread support are dumb. The George Floyd protests only worked because there was widespread outcry throughout America. The people were already united on the same issue, and there was widespread agreement that immediate and radical change was necessary. Little to nobody gives enough of a shit about climate change at the moment to actually do anything about it, so protests only end up pushing away people that might be on your side.
The move should be to first garner massive and widespread support before being disruptive. It’s like attempting a socialist revolution with a tiny army. You lose!
Okay well at its peak 60% of americans supported BLM while right now 70% of americans support climate change science.
So what’s your next bullshit reason youll hedge this opinion on?
Edit: this climate protest was in Britain, where support for climate change science is higher.