Or killing people you don't like. Or injuring others. Or looting. Or destroying property.
Basically anything that isn't those 4 things can be a viable form of protest, if executed correctly.
It's strange because if it's really just a pressure valve, that means all the authorities need to do is sit back and do nothing. The protest will burn itself out. But that's just another way of saying the goal of protesting isn't to accomplish anything except to feel better.
I'm just trying to understand the goals and motivations. Protesting has a long history in the US but it's rarely taught anywhere, so these answers aren't inherently obvious.
Protest brings people together. When it's a small protest, it's like a convention for the chronic opposition. But when a protest starts bringing in more attention, it brings people who show up in contact with new ideas, and creates a fertile ground for new collaborations. This happens in big ways (the idea of the 99% and the public understanding of accelerating wealth gaps owe a lot to Occupy, and the Bernie campaign is pretty much a direct consequence) and in smaller ways (Occupy led to many people switching from standard banks to credit unions, and also led to some excellent work opposing predatory student loans).
When you sit back and let the protest burn, you risk allowing the discontent to generalize and grow. But, sure, maybe it will just fizzle out, if there is still enough bread and circus to go around.
And elsewhere! Most recent large example of somewhat successful protests was the whole "Arab spring" series of events. Or the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine.
> but it's rarely taught anywhere
Of course it's not going to be taught in school ...
Historically, governments respond promptly to those things.
Hell, your opposition will probably be accusing you of those things (or planting people who carry them out), anyway. Best not to cross that line.
