>

What you're describing is using protesting as a pretense to bully or harass individuals. It's still technically protesting but you need to engage with the task of convincing people that you are morally right to bully an individual for your cause.
To /u/Dry-Ad-2732, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:

Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.

Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >

I agree with you in theory, but this is much harder to accomplish in practice.
When you take a large, angry, riled-up group of people and direct their anger not at a system or institution, but rather at an individual human (not to mention a human they are standing only a few feet from) it becomes much more difficult to keep things peaceful. 
You can't punch, stab, or shoot an idea like 'gerrymandering' or 'gender inequality,' but you can certainly punch, stab, or shoot a human being. As a result, I think there's a much higher risk of peaceful protests becoming violent mobs in these cases.
Again, I have nothing against the peaceful protests you mention; the only trick is consistently keeping them peaceful. >

If im being honest, average people face horrors because of corrupt people in power. I tend to have less sympathy for certain people in an instance of a violent protest. If they are willing to cause despair to the lives of many, well, it is what it is if some people go after them in the end..
But this is about peaceful ones specifically to respect the rules. >


If im being honest, average people face horrors because of corrupt people in power. I tend to have less sympathy for certain people in an instance of a violent protest. If they are willing to cause despair to the lives of many, well, it is what it is if some people go after them in the end..

Well, sure -- this is all well and good for the people in you power you disagree with. But if you're going to increase the risk of violent protest, you're going to increase it for everyone, not just your political adversaries. 
For example, let's say there's a Senator who helps pass a bill legalizing abortion, or expanding LGBT rights. Would you still shrug your shoulders and say "It is what it is" if they were violently targeted?
​

But this is about peaceful ones specifically to respect the rules.

Again, I agree with in theory. But it's a bit like saying, "Going 20 mph over the speed limit is good, as long as you don't cause any accidents." Similarly, this may be true in theory, but you'll have to grapple with the fact that speeding in and of itself increases the likelihood of accidents. >

OP, this is the real issue. You might be fine with the risks of violent protest against individuals who cause pain to certain groups, but we have to accept that there are many different groups all with different interpretations of what's "morally" wrong.
Most protests (unorganized ones at least), just need one spark before it turns violent. Humans are inherently fearful creatures where our flight/fight reflex kicks in very quickly. 
Let's take a home being protested. If people continuously encroach on a person's property, at what point do we call it too far? What happens if one person breaks down the door and enters? Would you assume the crowd wouldn't follow that person into the house?
In many cases, that spark is all it takes for a peaceful protest to turn violent. >

I think one major issue, is the intimidation factor. If a group of protestors is outside of a judges, or DA, or Politicans house, they may feel intimated to press charges or not, sign a bill or not, instead of making the right or lawful decision. What is peaceful means different things to different people.
The other issue I see is most people have neighbors, so even a peaceful protest can still be disruptive to people you aren't intending to disturb. Where as a town common, the state house, or court, generally aren't in neighborhoods.
Also public property is (in theory) our property, private property is not. >

100%. I live in Seattle and in 2020 protestors went to the home of the deputy mayor which is in the same area as my house. As the article mentions, there had been vandalism at the mayor's house on previous nights
People seem to think that everyone automatically understands the peaceful intention of a protest. If there are 100 people shouting outside my house at night and blocking cars, I don't necessarily have any reason to trust that the protest will be benign. They are creating a very precarious situation. I'm going to be much more on edge in my own house with my kids than in a public place. It's very easy for people on either side to feel threatened. >

If this were the norm, every politician would be getting harassed nonstop to the point that only the absolute worst, most corrupt people would consider it viable to hold office.
Even if someone has a 90% approval rating. There are still thousands of people who don't like what they're doing in their district alone. >

My view can't be changed by trying to invoke sympathy for politicians. The idea that the most corrupt people aren't already incentivized to hold office is inaccurate. Though, politicians aren't the only ones im talking about. They get too much attention. 
Let's visit heads of big corporations that funnel money into a corrupt political system for their own gain. >

Why do you think this would only affect politicians and people you don't like? You'd have protestors outside every woman who had ever visited an abortion clinics house. Every doctor who ever performed an abortion. Your legalisation of harassment would lead to everyone in fear, not just those you dislike. >

You’re assuming that the protesters are right to protest. Not all protests are justified. >

That wasn't my point. My point is how people should protest injustice. You can argue morals all day but that would be a different post per moral stance. >

What if pro life Americans began gathering in front of democrat politicians homes for weeks on end protesting for abortion to be made completely illegal and punishable by death? The protesters would believe that they’re morally right, babies shouldn’t be murdered. Meanwhile the democrats who believe that they’re actually morally right because women deserve reproductive rights would be suffering a lot of stress and anxiety from facing an unhappy crowd every time the left their home, the place where they should feel safest. 
Same thing applies to pro choice Americans and republican senators. >

Whataboutism isn't a good argument. Im not here to argue every what if. People in power never have to face their decisions, average people do. I advocate for changing that. I didn't mention my current stances >

That’s my point. You can’t argue for whether every protest at somebodies house is justified or not. That’s why protests at peoples homes shouldn’t happen at all. >

It strikes me that, to the extent your tactic will have an impact, that impact arises from harassment and intimidation. If a bunch of pro-lifers camped outside my house, yelling and waving placards depicting aborted foetuses, I doubt I would be moved towards their position by their passion for the welfare of unborn children. I imagine my chief feeling would be worry that a bunch of angry nutters were screaming at my child as they tried to go to school and monitoring when my wife is alone in the house. I don't think it's a technique that elicits a positive response, and it certainly isn't the basis for a civil political culture. If nothing else, consider that the same methods can be deployed by multiple sides of any given debate.
From what I know of the political science and sociology literature, there isn't much evidence that (non-violent) protests are a very effective tool for change. On their own, protests only slightly increase support for their position. Protests generally aren't persuasive. Attendees already agree, and watching a large mass of people shouting or walking around doesn't communicate very much to uninitiated onlookers. Protests seem to serve other, more inwardly oriented purposes. The (non-violent) protest movements that achieve their desired change are almost the ones that are paired with a well-administered campaigning organisation. These organisations can articulate a clear message and engage in ongoing lobbying. Crowds of people outside someone's home can't do that. >


If a bunch of pro-lifers camped outside my house, yelling and waving placards depicting aborted foetuses

It wouldn't be the worst thing antichoicers have done. >

Not even close. And that's true for members of all sorts of protests. If an angry mob shows up outside your house, there's an implied threat, even if the organisers insist that their movement is peaceful. The risk of just one potentially violent person is enough to make you fear for your wellbeing. And no movement is totally free of radicals, crazies or thugs. >


And that's true for members of all sorts of protests.

But the likelihood of violence isn't the same. >

Sure, but the fact that not all threats are equal doesn't render the more modest threats non-threatening. >

You're missing my point. If christofascists are protesting outside person x's house, it means they aren't bombing a clinic. Even if things get violent at the house, their are fewer potential victims. >

I would think depends on the scale and location of the clinic and the living situation of Person X. Depending on the dangerous pro-lifer's relative animosity towards a Person X and a clinic, the average expected violence might be higher at the house. 
In any case, that assumes a meaningful chance of violence. I don't think that's necessary for people to feel threatened. I'm also not sure that it has any much influence on how non-violent, presumably sympathetic protestors should behave, which seems to be OP's focus. I'm not very convinced by the idea that 'we' should harass 'bad people' at their homes, because that might encourage 'them' to harass 'good people' in their homes, where they'll kill fewer 'good people' if things get out of hand. Seems tenuous. >

I very much disagree with you. People protest for all kinds of rubbish. If you passed a law on abortion (for example) you could well expect a protest outside your house no matter which way you went (pro choice/pro life)
In no country will 100% of the populace agree on an issue. The people whose job it is to make the hard decisions shouldn't expect protests outside their house. >

There is something inherently wrong about having people have such power to make impactful decisions while not ever having any real consequences for those choices.
If the case was that people protested at others homes either way, maybe we might take a look at how large decisions are made so a handful of people wouldn't be at the center of it all. >

If every single person had a say in American politics nothing would get done. Congressmen and women and senators are called representatives for a reason. They are elected to represent you and you vote for them. >

If the system is inherently flawed, then the people to best served aren't the ones getting elected. You would have to prove to me that the system is just for that statement to hold weight >

Institutions are not upheld by... itself. You can't target an institution without targeting the individuals. 
My idea is dumb but has been utilitized historically across the globe to enact change. So, I guess I'll be dumb. >


My idea is dumb but has been utilitized historically across the globe to enact change.

Targeting individuals nonviolently has enacted meaningful change exactly when? >

I am not allowed to advocate for violence. 
But literally Spaniards did it over eviction notices and it was a successful movement. Do your own research before assuming you know the history of protests >

Thanks for the response, are you talking about the War of Cerberus? I thought that was more squatting in other rentals?
If not mind sharing a link? I'd also love a response to my longer comment. >

Logistically, it would be hard for enough people to legally protest at anyone's house to really make it all that uncomfortable for that person.  Car service drives through the small gathering, they go inside, and enjoy their evening.  Doesn't really get in their way at all.  And outside attention to the protest will be minimal.
Now, you get a massive show of people at a public place, where they can't be legally removed just for protesting, and you'll draw more attention.  This will get members of the media on the case, who will start hounding the people who are being targeted (senators, for example).  Between that and a constant influx of calls from the public that their aids will have to deal with, it becomes hard to just ignore what's happening.  
Continued protests from large numbers seem like they'd be much more effective than a small handful of people who will keep being shooed off of someone's private property or ignored entirely while hanging around on a sidewalk. >

Yeah I don't think top heads who make bank off of policies or decisions that harm others care about the brief negative attention mass protests cause. At best, we historically see symbolic gestures.
A decent size protest at someone's home is inherently intimidating. Which I think is more persuasive with people who demonstrate zero actual care for others wellbeing. >


A decent size protest at someone's home is inherently intimidating

If your goal is intimidation then you are effectively advocating for legal, organised harassment. Intimidation is only intimidating if there's a threat of danger. If its entirely peaceful then it wouldn't be intimidating. If its intimidating that implies there's a threat of the possibility of danger. >

Something can be intimidating without actually intending harm. Someone can look intimidating. Words can feel intimidating. It does not require violence. 
Legal, organized harassment? Sure. Yeah. Why not? >

Hypothetically why not just skip the middle man here and go up to someone and "harass them" with a fake firearm to get them to bend to your will then?
How about an organized mob of peaceful people with fake firearms approaching the person?
What about burning a cross peacefully on public property outside their house?
By your own words here 

Something can be intimidating without actually intending harm. Someone can look intimidating. Words can feel intimidating. It does not require violence. >

The "peaceful" part of your view is a big if. Even if the leaders of the demonstration have peaceful intentions, things can get out of hand.
If that happens in a public place, that's one thing. If it happens on the front lawn of someone's home, that could end up being very bad PR for your movement. >

The point of protesting is to increase visibility in order to garner more support for one's cause that is then more compelling.
This is different to what you are suggesting which is mainly to just harass the person who you believe is most likely able to enact that change.
By that definition, wouldn't and shouldnt all protests be outside the highest Authority if the land - the President/Prime Minisiter's home?
Let's say there's a chicken sandwich franchise location that is discriminating against certain people. Where are you protesting? The employee's home that didnt serve someone? Their shift leader's home? The frachisement's manager? The franchise owner? The district manager? The CEO? The Board of Directors homes? The international food conglomerate company? The city comptroller whom allowed the franchise to operate at their location?