Hacker News Reader

Comment by WJW | Hacker News Reader

The farmers seem to be fighting a very losing battle on this one. A few weeks ago, about 40% of the population was supportive of their plight. In just the last few days we've seen:

- Farmers blocking highways, not even letting ambulances through (!).

- Farmers threatening the family of cabinet ministers.

- Blockades of food distribution centers.

- Rioters attacking police vans with sledgehammers.

This kind of thing has been degrading popular support pretty fast. Politicians calling it a "civil war" are just playing to the audience though. Actual farmers make up a less than a single percent of the population (~53k according to the central statistics agency) and the general desire of the population to get on with other things like building houses is likely to prevail IMO.

View on HN

I've noticed this gets said of every protest movement in the last few decades: BLM protests in the US, Trucker convoy in Canada, Yellow Vest in France. Even years ago, the average urban dweller started to hate the Critical Mass protests in cities when their commute got worse. I wonder if there is a limit on disobedience that is tolerated? Or simply people get defensive when they are made to suffer for a protest they aren't directly involved with?

This isn't about the actual movements/protests, but about the tactics. "Raising awareness" only gets you so far, negatively impacting people seems to backfire. Is there a middle ground?

> Is there a middle ground?

Yes. Raise awareness with targeted, limited, protests and try to keep the awareness by remaining visible. You can remain visible with banners, brochures, interviews and in lots of ways. Increasing violence is not a good way to get people interested in your cause. The increase in violence also often doesn't seem to be caused by the people who feel strongly about a cause, but by other who hijack it for their enjoyment.

Also, the farmers aren't raising awareness for some coherent goal like ending racism. They are protesting drastic measures that are necessary to protect nature in the country and are supported by a majority of the people. These drastic measures include billions in payments to the affected farmers, it's not like the cost will be on them. So it will be really hard for the farmers to convince the public that their demands are reasonable. (We don't even really know their demands except "not this".)

On the other side there's been massive censorship through tech + gov partnership to amplify the tyranny of the majority and even shape the majority's beliefs. Couple that with huge funding imbalances in science and sponsored "research". What's the saying go? If you suppress speech, the only option is more forceful approaches...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com