So is somebody physically blocking a bridge with a giant truck and refusing to move it less militant than somebody pulling their music off Spotify and writing a letter explaining their choice?
Why did you use the term “militant” to describe the side that is not using military tactics.
This is the standard right-wing strategy. Speak of your opponent exactly as you deserve to be spoken about. As long as you do it first, it makes accusing you of what you're actually doing less impactful, and sows doubt.
Basically, they know that one side is militaristic, and the other is not, but they side with the militaristic side ideologically, so they reflexively demonize their opponents with terms that better describe themselves, Knowing it's a bad look intentionally distancing themselves from the reality of what they stand for.
Yes. Disrupting supply chains is a thing militaries do. Regardless if they used guns or not. Militaries would love to win all conflicts with as few guns as possible. So if they could blockade a country with no guns at all, that would be ideal.
The point being made is that pulling one's music from Spotify is a personal choice about stuff you control.
Blocking bridges is forcing others who may not even be involved in your conflict to suffer the consequences of it. This is generally considered "a dick move".
Shutting down routes in and out of a city for such a selfish, delusional cause is well beyond what any rational person would call "civil disobedience". There is no basis for allowing the intentional permanent disruption of public resources and services to fight for a cause. You can't just filibuster society by sabotaging infrastructure like this.
With self-driving tech being a present reality, these truckers are just giving everyone a reason to automate them out of their jobs. A robot can't throw a tantrum, join a gang, and terrorize your city.
Why did you use the term “militant” to describe the side that is not using military tactics.