Solidarity denotes the unity and mutual support among individuals with shared objectives, crucial in protests for reinforcing collective resolve. Protests are strategically held in high-visibility, disruptive locations to maximize impact and draw public and institutional attention. This disruption compels acknowledgment of the issues, leveraging collective action to catalyze societal and political change. In contrast, low-visibility protests are often ineffective as they fail to generate sufficient public awareness or pressure for change.
Protests are effective if there's a credible threat to those with the power to change whatever is being protected about. If the protesters do not pose a threat of any kind (and I don't mean just one of physical violence, since that's often one of the least effective potential threats, although it can have value at times) then nothing will change.
But protesting where you cause an inconvenience to those who neither support nor oppose the protesters can often be a bad move. On occasion it can serve to bring people's attention to the issue and convince them, but in my experience, if the first experience someone has with an issue, the first awareness they have of it is some protest that caused them problems, that person is likely to be disinclined to become a supporter of the cause, and indeed is often likely to be pushed towards opposing and cracking down on the protest.
This of course can backfire, since if the protesters pose an electoral threat, for instance, and the protests cause a bunch of people to be angry at them and just want the crap to end, those in power are given the message that hey...there's support for just getting rid of the protesters.
i mostly agree but i just want to add that sometimes the “credible threat” can be as simple as public awareness
especially for new or deeply unpopular movements (like pro-palestine), the public getting to see for the first time that there are like-minded souls with the same unpopular yet powerful ideas can be vastly threatening to those in power
This is effective in areas that permit it, particularly blue parts of the US (from an American perspective). You have to be more careful in red areas. Disruption is generally some kind of infraction. Although protest in general is constitutionally protected in traditional free speech zones, any small breach of the law will be met with the excessive force of the law.
You can protest however you like. However if your plan is to be disruptive or destructive for its own sake, that extra attention you get will be negative. If t you think you’re making a difference by hurting people who could or would support you, you’re wrong. If your goal is headlines regardless of what you’re protesting in the name of, I’m likely to ignore you
When it’s a cause I care about, when you’re driving away supporters, then I object. When it’s a cause I also protest for and you’re making me distance myself from a bunch of extremists, I’m annoyed.
The people who get upset about protests would never ever support those causes to begin with. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to deceive you. Not a single person who got upset about black people sitting in the wrong bus seat or blocking a lunch counter gave a rat's ass by the right of black people. Not a single one. It's the same for every single protest ever. This is a fiction that you've been taught in schools by liberals and conservatives who don't want you protesting.