
- cross-posted to:
- inperson@slrpnk.net
- climate_lm@slrpnk.net
A reminder folks: people engage in this kind of radical protest because it works:
Results of two online experiments conducted with diverse samples (N = 2,772), including a study of the animal rights movement and a preregistered study of the climate movement, show that the presence of a radical flank increases support for a moderate faction within the same movement. Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant. This perception led participants to identify more with and, in turn, express greater support for the more moderate faction. These results suggest that activist groups that employ unpopular tactics can increase support for other groups within the same movement, pointing to a hidden way in which movement factions are complementary, despite pursuing divergent approaches to social change.
It’s a silly question that assumes that harmless but disruptive is in any way useful.
So, no I won’t answer it because you haven’t proven it’s a valid question. You might as well ask me my opinions of flying carpets vs. transporters.
The question was
What is your solution?
Vote for the best possible candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning.
Back in the day, Frederick Douglas had a chance to support an abolition candidate with no chance, or Abe Lincoln.
Lincoln wasn’t running on abolition, but Douglas felt he was the best they could get.
Also, thanks for admitting the other question was nonsensical.