Here are articles from differing perspectives on this topic:

(A)  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/is-there-any-point-to-protesting

(B)  https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/why-street-protests-dont-work/360264/

(C)  https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/wall-street-protests

(D)  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/27/yes-marches-can-really-matter-these-three-factors-make-the-difference/

(E)  https://hbr.org/2017/01/how-protests-become-successful-social-movements

So, do you think that formal protests in the streets, ect. are the most effective way (or effective in any way) of brining about change in society?  Or, rather, would it be more efficient to end "PC" behavior and have "everyday conversations" about the issues with people that you come into social contact with, post more blogs, other writing/video formats posted online or in person, lectures/talks, ect.?  Is it more that people are not challenged on their beliefs in everyday life and that doing this would be the best way to bring about change in society rather than isolated protests in streets that (although large ones receive media coverage) is more or less "preaching to the quire" or otherwise overly confrontational?  Also, are street protests designed to be fundamentally emotional, illogical, and rather irrational with chanting's and mantras recited en masse?  Is this a proper mechanism for which to persuade others that do not see nor agree with your perspective?  Also, doesn't the risk of street protest (i.e. going to jail) seem far higher than "everyday conversation" even if those conversations may be highly uncomfortable?

Thoughts?