Also I think I was clear that Im taking about protesting for rights, like how we got 5 day workweeks, women voting rights, etc.
If eg a military coup happens I do not think anyone would label it as a protest.

Also, protesting is a fairly democratic thing to do, it's not about occupying some university building (like, what even are the damages?), it's about letting your opinion to be heard, to get attention on the issue, to let people know it's not just them.

And our (current) society is such that people pay attention (& education on the subject) by how 'loudly' they hear it. Ofc media is part of the problem (for profit or gov controlled both lead to less professionalism), but so is most people barely having enough time & energy to survive, much less ponder issues, organise, make change happen, etc.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Wait ... you think ... Jan 6th was ... a protest?
Im not Murican, but that doesn't seem right.

No. I tried rereading my comment to see how you got that, but it seems fine. It was a very stupid attempted coup. You can't do a coup by taking over the capital building though. That's not how that works.

I may see how the confusion came. By "march on the capital as a protest", there's been many protests that use that term to refer to marching on Washington D.C., not the capital building itself. The comment before used that phrase to also include "to occupy the capital" referring to the capital building like Jan 6. That is not a protest, nor would it be achieve anything.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh, yes, re-reading the whole thing I see that too (and I might have been too confrontational for no reason, sry about that, wasn't even intentional).

I was then really replying to just the last paragraph how only peaceful protests are ok. The fact that the comment was predominantly about Janny the Sixth and intentionally relating it that to "protests should be peaceful" I automatically disregarded as bs and focused only on that last bit of propaganda.

Coups however do often include physically storming buildings (or having access to it by default) to seize the legislature powers & using some sort of "official" pathway to power (just to have a basis for the administration & military to now follow the new regime as if technically nothing changed).

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, I'm not the one who said peaceful protests are the only way to do things. I disagree with that. Most effective protests are called violent even when they're not. The state will use violence against them and then claim they were violent. Peaceful protest can be a useful tool, but it isn't the only tool. Storming that capital building is not a useful tool though. It's only useful if you want to destroy a movement.

Coups however do often include physically storming buildings (or having access to it by default) to seize the legislature powers & using some sort of "official" pathway to power (just to have a basis for the administration & military to now follow the new regime as if technically nothing changed).

Sure, but it's rarely, if ever, control of the building itself that gives that power. If you can control the people who wield it and force them to grant you power, that's how it happens. That or kill them all and become the de facto controllers, but that requires a large military presence around the nation and that's what gives power. That's probably required in the case of any coup for that matter. Some people are going to turn against you and you have to be able to stop them.