Think of it this way. Say a group of people are protesting a Walmart being built in their downtown district. People are out in the streets, traffic is jammed up, and "people who can't do anything about it" get pissed off. Commuters are mad, the local businesses are mad. So these people "who can't do anything about it" call their alderman, mayor, whatever "You need to do something about these protests, it's affecting my business/commute".
It adds pressure for those in charge to capitulate and stop the protests. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
Edit: I can't reply to the comment below this for some reason, but ok they send the police to break up protests against Walmart. Which looks absolutely terrible. "Our mayor sides with Walmart over the people." That adds to the narrative and is paradoxically possible a net positive for the protestors.
I don't think that's what's been happening. The protestors have been so annoying, blocking amubulances, etc, that they are definitely making their causes look bad. And on video.
You aren’t entitled to break the law, steal from others, hold them hostage on highways, etc just because your view is not popular. That’s what illegal protests / riots are - people who are so entitled that they think they’re allowed to do whatever they want until they get their way. That’s not acceptable in a civil society and they should face harsh consequences for it.
Do you disagree with the illegal marches and blocking of traffic during the protests to grant black people and women the right to vote in the united states? Should women who illegally march for the right to vote be "harshly" consequenced?
This is a false equivalence. Those same groups have the same rights today as others, and can push for change within the bounds of our law. In the past they couldn’t vote, but that’s not the case now. Likewise people protesting Israel-Palestine or Trump or whatever have ways to share ideas, influence, vote, and legally protest. If they aren’t getting what they want, it is because their ideas are unpopular and they need to accept that. They aren’t entitled to an audience and aren’t entitled to breaking the law just because they didn’t get their way.
In order to gain these rights, women and black people illegally protested. Famously, a black woman didn't agree to be moved to the back of the bus during racial segregation-- illegally, of course! How harshly should Rosa Parks have been consequenced?
Seriously, what's the difference here? They're doing illegal protests same as like when women illegally protested. If you want to punish some students harshly, you should also support jailing Rosa Parks, no?
Oh - I see. It's extremely easy. Disrupting people who can't do anything about it in a way that turns the focus on you being the problem, not politicians, will mean that politicians will not be affected by the disruption.
No, they complain to the politicians. Then they have to decide whether or not they beat the shit out of people with police or grant their wish. Protests are not about gaining allies, they are strictly about disruption.
It adds pressure for those in charge to capitulate and stop the protests. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
Edit: I can't reply to the comment below this for some reason, but ok they send the police to break up protests against Walmart. Which looks absolutely terrible. "Our mayor sides with Walmart over the people." That adds to the narrative and is paradoxically possible a net positive for the protestors.