Tons of protests going on everywhere against Israel, but not a single government has changed their stance
Only ones that can materially disrupt things.
A protest with a permit or with permission is a parade.
Even those can still have some benefit - it can act as a networking opportunity for people to meet each other and plan other events / get involved in other ways, it can give a morale boost to people considering giving up, etc.
if protests did nothing, they wouldn’t be forbidden in China and Russia and every other autocratic society
Also there’s the American protest, where the opposing political party mounts a counter protests and politicians let them fight amongst each other. Then there’s the French protest, where they set the barbecue on the tram tracks and walk in milions for days.
Not all protests are equal
Yeah they shoot us when we try to protest like the French? Kinda tired of this comparison because it’s not apples to apples. America’s protest laws are not kind and they’re getting worse.
Laughs in Hong Kong, or any other major protest in the last decade.
No they wouldn’t. If they did, the uproar would be massive. Or maybe not, idk, I’m not a yankee.
Sometimes. It depends on a lot of factors. Protests can convince people to change their mind, it has happened in the past and does happen on some situations these days as well. Protests can also have negative effects as well, considering things like where, when, and how a protest is carried out can either change people’s minds or entrench them even more in their own opinion.
At the end of the day, the outcome of a protest is just as unpredictable as what a person will do in ten years. Or even the next hour, really.
Hmmm, ig it works if people in charge are actually someone who are willing to accept their mistakes and change their minds, which does not seem to be the case for the situation in question
Protests rarely have a fast rate of changing political situations. Take a look at the suffragette movement. There is also a big difference of success between peaceful and violent protests.
I dunno, effective protesting will most of the time target the rich, or oil companies etc. instead of changing peoples minds. talking is a good tool for that instead.
Both the women’s suffrage movement and the civil rights movement in the US were significantly fueled by protests. It takes more than protests, but protests can play an important part.
Notably, these movements had effective protests because they actually tried to force a change with their matches. The civil rights movement marching through Selma was to a registration office, because they were being denied the right to vote, and they were effectively saying “go ahead, tell us all no, all at once.”
Suffragettes not only demonstrated but worked together to convince their husbands to embrace the movement, and even that only happened because Wilson had a stroke and his wife effectively ran the office while he recovered.
Modern protests are skipping the most important step. They’re obstructing, being seen, but not actually trying to accomplish anything specific. Or if they are, their objective with each protest is so obscured by the media as to be rendered moot. What good did blocking traffic for half an hour do, other than to sour people to your cause?
Every time a person is killed by a cop, fucking get 500 people to go to the police station responsible and have every single person demand the footage of the killing. One after another. Inundate then with requests, clog up their operation, get fucking arrested if you have to.
Protesting alone doesn’t accomplish anything, unless you protest with some teeth.
Building off this, people have to look at more than just the protests. “Radicals” shape the Overton Window, think Malcom X.
In a world where nobody protests and nobody is participating in radical activism, nothing changes. In a world where there are protests but still no radical activism, there is usually no change, though the media and capitalists will feign care and “listen to the issues”. When the protesters become the moderates, the ruling class finally cedes some power to stop social revolution.
In a world where there are only radical activists, no moderate protesters or passive bystanders, there would be social revolution, monumental change. This has happened before, and it’s why the ruling class concedes changes as the overton window becomes more radical.
To a lot of people this looks like “protests work!” but it’s not the protests primarily, it’s the threat of social revolution, led by the radicals and supported by the new moderate position of protesting against the status quo.
This is an incorrect and rosy generalisation of the suffragette and many protest movements in general. Protest movements are inherently messy and disorganised. The suffragette movement itself was infamous for infighting, because they couldn’t decide whether they were only fighting for voting rights for women, or equality in general such as 8 hour work days for women.
It took more than 50 years later for these workplace equality ideas to become more mainstream as second wave feminism in the 1970s. Even then, the second wave feminists were prone to infighting, due to feminists not agreeing on what a woman should be, usually by excluding lesbians and trans women.
If you think modern protests are too disruptive and only work to sour people to your cause, remember that suffragettes literally committed arson, improvised bombings and attempted assassinations. The extreme violence was met with immense public backlash, to the point they were painted by the media as literal terrorists.
Feminism - Suffrage, Equality, Activism | Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-suffrage-movement
Preceding the Iraq War, there was the largest worldwide protest in history to try to stop the war from happening.
Protests are helpful at showing public sentiment, but they rarely change policy.
MLK was assassinated after he started focusing on class issues. The FBI tried to threaten him with an anonymous letter telling him to kill himself.
The Stop Cop City protestors in Atlanta are being charged with terrorism.
Immediately after the UK anti-war protests, I remember seeing how shaky Tony Blair was in a sabre-rattling speech (The same day or a day after), knowing that 1million people had hit the streets to disagree with what he was saying.
So they are acknowledged by politicians.
Policy on the looming war did not change, due to back-scratching alliances between the countries involved. The USA was shouting ‘jump’. The result, Allies: ‘how high’.
Good thing that just like the USA that they replaced Blair with someone who just had the balls to be an absolute piece of shit with zero remorse. Donald Trump and Boris Johnson make Blair and Bush look like fucking brilliant men of great integrity, which they are assuredly not.
Fred Hampton. Gandhi. Leftist governments that won’t bend to fascist/capitalist countries’ bidding. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange. Real threats are “reasoned with,” and if that fails, neutralized.
thats why leaders should only be placeholders. the real power is in the people agreeing and following the ideals.
Exactly!
Farmers protested all over Europe recently and got what they wanted, which is to get rid of latest environmental regulations (that would have enforced an end of subsidies on diesel, reduction of nitrates use in fertilisers etc).
Yeah, but farmers have a powerful lobby and they produce our food. So they got some power behind their words.
I think they can work, but only when certain pieces are there. The protest must have:
- A clearly defined goal
- Existing support somewhere in the government, or a financial incentive for people in the government that oppose you.
For example, civil rights and women’s right to vote had some governmental support. The protests had well defined goals, and helped raise awareness and support for those people already in government to enact change.
On the other hand, the 1% protests a few years ago, and more recently, BLM, had ambiguous goals. Without clear goals, no existing government support could be identified. And there was no financial incentive for others to act. The protests raised awareness but ultimately had little real effect unfortunately.
I do wonder if things have changed though. I think public shaming helped enact some changes in the past, but no one has shame anymore.
What was unclear about “stop killing black people or anyone else just because you have a badge!”?
All black people, or… /s
Yes because:
-
There is a visible action taking place. You are standing for something you believe in. This gives other people who may lack confidence or opportunity something to notice.
-
Those in authority cannot claim what they do is an unopposed position.
-
Those you are protesting on behalf of, even if they are going through hell, know that someone somewhere is not prepared to let their circumstances go unnoticed.
-
Those you are protesting against know that someone sees what they are doing.
Maybe if the person who’s actions are being protested against are reasonable. When protesters are met by military forces and detained in trumped up charges of terrorism, then they don’t work until there looks to be consequences for the person/group being protested.
As a rule of thumb if you have the military on your side protests get crushed. Look at Egypt for an example of what happens once the military gets involved.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Blair\_Mountain](The Battle of Blair Mountain) is a good example on the US end. Striking US mine workers crushed by the US military on US soil. You could argue that it was one of many events that led to labor protections, but it wasn’t the inviting event and those protections came more than a decade later.
-
Yes, mobilization is a strong message to government in democracy. It says we do not like the direction, we are going and we will vote you out or cause more disruption. In my town we mobilized in front of our MP’s office due to the partial privatization of medcial aid. Our MP ended up changing his vote and siding against his party, as it was the will of the people. Participation in democracy is a powerful tool.
Read up on the civil rights movements or how women got the right to vote.
Protests 100% work
History shows that protests worked either when the vast majority of the population striked, or when they were violent.
I am quite disillusioned that gathering in a single square for a few hours with some signs will ever change anything.
Only when there’s enough people that it’s bordering revolution. Note how many national guard were not only deployed, but actually found themselves in gun battles (over civil rights), it was nuts by today’s norms.
There were plenty of less peaceful groups too. So I guess they 100% worked too.
Note, 100% can work, but don’t work 100%.
Check out France protests sometime
It doesn’t work all the time sadly
No, protests can’t enact policy in democratic countries. Voting can, boycotts can, and strikes can. You can organize all of the three as part of a protest, but it’s a lot more work than shouting with a fancy sign, and a lot less fun to do.
deleted by creator
Effective to the degree they have a material impact on the economy and psychological impact on the powerful and their lackeys. I would argue many of the BLM protests had an effect, if minor, because many cops quit and many cities still have fewer cops than they did before due to difficulty hiring.
Blocking commerce, looting, and arson of empty buildings have significant economic and psychological impacts. From an American perspective, successful social movements like, the suffragettes, civil rights movement, anti-slavery activists, and workers rights groups all engaged in such strategies. It wasn’t until well after that these movements were sanitized to be “non-violent”.
Some do, some don’t. What kind of answer did you expect?
Thanks Sherlock
Edit on 27.02.2024 19:10 local time: I’m sorry for calling you Sherlock, I was made aware how disparaging that is, and can’t get by without correcting it and apologising. You don’t have to accept it. I now know how that kind of behaviour makes me a pathetic worm. But I can do better. Eventually.
He’s right. There’s no clearcut answer to the questions. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. What kind of an answer does OP expect with an open question like that?
Probably longer and with ideas that they didn’t thought of. On account of an open question like that. Which it seems many other commenters came up with.
They’re all talking about successful protests. Because unsuccessful protests are rarely something we remember.
It’s a perfectly good, efficient answer. Do they work? Sometimes. It (often) depends on how many people are involved in the protest
I can think of one very successful protest that only involved one single monk
What is efficient in reiterating the same answer that applies to basically everything - “Yes and no”? Is there someone who doesn’t somehow know that?
And the practice of self-immolation have never stopped; in the rest of the world (outside of north-Tibetan region known as China) it’s very underreported - it happened at least 160 times since 2009. There’s complexity in everything and my argument is that saying “maybe or whatever” is absolutely meaningless.
You’re not questioning the efficiency of the answer here. You’re questioning the quality.
You don’t even know yourself what it is you want. And please. Stop with the strawman arguments. It’s pathetic.
No one claimed self immolation stoped. Why are you trying to bring it up as if I’ve said otherwise? Same goes with your disgusting paraphrasing. No one said “maybe or whatever” and tried to play it off like that.
It’s very simple. Question: “Does protests work?” Answer: “Sometimes (we won’t know if it will until we try)”
I’m sorry for bringing information that no one did during conversation. And please do not tell me what I meant like you are in my head. I find it pointless to tell people what they already know. I define it as “the least you can do (the effort that’s meaningless)”. And go to hell dick, let’s discuss nothing ever, and get angry over insults that you made up (is that straw man or not?), and don’t forget to be rude, particularly as it’s not your fault this conversation even started.
It’s so simple it didn’t even need to be said.
Edit: Actually I’m done here. I’m sick and don’t need to talk to someone who calls people pathetic because they disagree with them. It’s become detrimental long time ago. You won, I yield, I’m wrong and you successfully defended a commenter who didn’t even needed it. From what? I have no idea.
