Edited slightly to clarify my point: the vast majority of protests are ineffective; the ones that are effective lead to violent injustice more often than they lead to justice.
I'm struggling to think of a violent protest, at least in the western world that caused a change in government policy, beyond causing police departments to invest in watercannons.
Of course it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of a peaceful protest, but it wouldn't surprise me if vocal opposition to say the Iraq war had an impact on foreign policy for Syria for example.
Completely disagree. I assume you're imply protests around slavery/discrimination. I think those protests had to reach a boiling point before real change could occur. If it just stayed super-peaceful and nobody ever showed pure rage I doubt anything would have changed. In fact, when I think about history, I believe most major changes happened only after protests reached a boiling point because the people in power who benefit from the broken system won't be convinced with words alone. That doesn't mean I support wild violence, but I think that's just the unfortunate fact of society that a bad social structure can't be changed without it reaching extreme stress.
Perhaps we can use animal rights protests in the UK. These started off by increasing welfare for farm animals; reducing use of animal testing in cosmetics; reducing the amount of fur sold in department stores. But then other changes included tighter controls on what demonstrations could do and now UK government is hardline on supporting vivisection and denying rights to (even peacefully) protest such.
I would say something where people organise an event and bring placards rather than outright terrorism.
The difference is probably that a majority of people don't support the fur trade but most people support animal testing for medical research and it's unlikely that any form of protest would really change public opinion.
Doesn't make sense to interfere with ineffective protests.
As you can see in comments below, this leads some protesters to become badass revolutionaries and then dictators.
And you only helped them while discouraging good citizens from spreading their point of view.
I'm not saying it makes sense to interfere with ineffective protests (and I don't support doing so). I'm explaining why many, ordinary, people hate protestors.
By doing so they further tear apart the fabric of society which, when it rips apart, will destroy the Order they love so much.
To be precise, by demanding to narrow the feedback of the society and radicalize the protesters.
This isn't going to end well if that sentiment you describe is widespread.
