There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

ICastFist ,
@ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

Depends. A protest that happens for a grand total of a single day will do jack shit. A protest that lasts several days usually tends to get some results. If the end result is a piece of shit, an organized front will start protesting again.

The thing about protests is that they have, more than bring attention to something, is annoy and/or threaten the powerful. If you ever see a protest where the police is protecting the people, that shit is most definitely defending oppression (happened a lot in Brazil in the last 10 or so years). You know how strikes are almost always shown as utterly villainous, something done by “freeloaders” who “don’t want to work”, by corporate media? That’s because it’s annoying the powerful, the protest is working and the powerful are fighting back behind the scenes.

Protests that “don’t bother anyone” are bound to be forgotten like a tiktok video. That’s a real problem, because sometimes a lot of innocent bystanders also get annoyed, like in the case of strikes. A strike of bus drivers will fuck up a LOT of workers, and possibly hurt them much more than any powerful figure, so it’s super easy to turn public opinion go against them.

That’s the problem of society, the majority of people don’t have power, so the only way they can be heard is by joining up for a common purpose. Powerful people can make one or two calls to fight back against a mass of protesters.

Chewget ,

Absolutely protests change the world.

AFKBRBChocolate ,

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.

Wogi ,

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.

Meron35 ,

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 - www.britannica.com/topic/…/The-suffrage-movement

Nevoic ,

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.

UnPassive ,

Check out France protests sometime

Noodle07 ,

It doesn’t work all the time sadly

randon31415 ,

Protest toppled a couple of leaders during the Arab spring. Even with Israel, Biden has started sanctioning West bank settlers and sends veiled threats about respecting life. It is not much, but without protests, we wouldn’t even see that.

Resol ,
@Resol@lemmy.world avatar

Some protests in the Arab Spring even caused civil wars, at least one of which is still ongoing to this day.

JesusTheCarpenter ,

Sometimes they do, sometimes (most times probably) they don’t. However they don’t work 100% of the time if attempts are never made.

pearable ,

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”.

schnurrito ,

Sometimes.

You mention the specific example of Israel which is literally the most complicated conflict in the entire world. Most people are already aware that it is happening, all the arguments on both sides of that are very well known, there is not really anything novel that can still be said about it. So protests about it (on any side) are not going to have a lot of effect.

yarr ,

Some do, some don’t. What kind of answer did you expect?

BustinJiber , (edited )

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.

GoodEye8 ,

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?

BustinJiber ,

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.

Atomic ,

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

BustinJiber ,

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.

Atomic ,

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)”

BustinJiber , (edited )

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.

Atomic ,

If you meant to question the efficiency then that word does not mean what you think it means.

I certainly did not invent the word strawman nor the use of its tactic in debate. The act of making up an argument from the other side and then respond to it. (You have the combined knowledge of the human race at your fingertips. But googling “what is strawmanning” is too complicated?)

My fault this conversation started? How did you come to that conclusion? You chose to respond. With the dumbest response possible. That’s not my fault. That’s entirely on you.

If you think the answer is so simple it should not be said, then it’s not the answer that’s the problem, it’s the question.

Which is another dying way of thinking. Just because the answer is simple and obvious to you doesn’t mean it’s the case for him

BustinJiber , (edited )

Where in the hell did I say that you started the conversation? It’s really hard to talk to somebody who is twisting what was said. It’s literally WRITTEN. Maybe you should look up that straw man thing yourself. Because yes, you did use it number of times, by putting meaning into what I wrote that was not there. And it was you who responded to me, and not even to my original comment, try scrolling up and reading what was said for once.

Example of a straw man:

You don’t even know yourself what it is you want. And please. Stop with the strawman arguments. It’s pathetic.

What the hell does it mean “I don’t know what I want”? What else do you assume about me? What I want is not being told the obvious which sounds like dismissal rather than any meaningful piece of knowledge.

No one claimed self immolation stoped. Why are you trying to bring it up as if I’ve said otherwise?

Where did I implied that you said otherwise? I’m sorry for not being aware of your endless knowledge. Next time I will correct myself and assume that you know everything already. It was pathetic of me.

You should belittle people more, it’s absolutely a winning strategy by telling them what they wrote is straw man, thusly their opinion doesn’t matter. And don’t forget to say “that’s not what I wrote”.

Insulting people on the internet is literally the last thing on my list of priorities. After reading all the comments I realised I didn’t do anything like that to you. At least once you decided that I insulted other guy but not you, so you rolled out with real ones. And all this over one stupid sarcastic jab, that wasn’t even for you, yet you couldn’t stand it.

It makes me crazy when people assume the worst about me, when nothing like that was said by me. I will not stand misrepresentation.

Number of times you have put fault on the poster, the original commenter, me, but never yourself. I can’t talk to those that seem to have no self awareness, or are not able to admit fault. I can’t imagine thinking that I am constantly and stubbornly right, I can’t live like this, it’s one of the worst assumption a person can have about themselves.

And I am over the original topic of this nonsensical conversation, as we haven’t moved the goal post even once. It remind me of that time bodybuilders argued how long a week is. I’m sorry for implying that you might have been not aware of this though.

Edit: I just read all my comments once again and I have no idea where I was strawmaning in that third comment I made in the entire conversation. Since I am too stupid to understand it can you explain so I can improve in the future. So never again I will be accused of “not knowing what I want” whatever that even supposed to mean.

Atomic ,

I see writing a novel is on your list of priorities though. Thought you were done.

The irony of your response accusing me of all the things you lack and cannot comprehend is so strong I can taste it.

Your first comment to the top one was “thanks sherlock”. You don’t think that’s insulting? Oh right. You’re above that. You don’t insult people by ironically calling them by Sherlock, the master detective.

Pathetic.

BustinJiber , (edited )

Holy fuck, as you wish. There is clearly no chance of changing a mind of a limited self-centered stubborn asshole. Keep being insulted for others, that’s where sanity lies.

The irony of not being able to defend yourself in any way than calling others stupid is palpable.

Actually scratch what I said there because that lady thing that you said was so hilariously over anything I’ve ever experienced I must have heard something like that in a sitcom or something. "Your first comment to the top one was “thanks sherlock”. You don’t think that’s insulting? Oh right. You’re above that. You don’t insult people by ironically calling them by Sherlock, the master detective. "

“Pathetic.”

Such crashing insult that was, his ego must have been destroyed. Is that why he didn’t say anything after? The burn must have been incinerating, he is still in recovery. Let me test something: NO SHIT WATSON. I’m sorry for doing that to you, and causing endless sleepless nights. It’s an experiment. For science.

I can’t stop imagining you on a white steed in massive armour, looking at me, a lowly peasant, and striking me down like a worm that I am, call of “PATHETIC” on your lips, me whimpering “I only called him Sherlock spare me good sire”. I’ve been down this whole week, needed good laugh, so thank you. I have never met somebody so up in their ass.

Atomic ,

You didn’t say that to be nice. You tried to insult their intelligence by itonically calling them clever. You thinking it’s not a major insult is irrelevant. But when faced with your own hypocrisy you can do nothing but deflect.

You coming in here like “oh insulting someone is the last of my priority” yet it was the first thing you did. Am I wrong?

I’m not up my ass. Just calling out your hypocrisy. I can see you’re taking it well.

K1nsey6 ,
@K1nsey6@lemmy.world avatar

The only thing the state understands is violence, money and power. We can do nothing to threaten their power or violence, but we can threaten their money through general strikes. Bring capitalism to its knees and they too will bend.

TengoDosVacas ,

Protests can be highly effective if you follow the proper procedures, set a time and place that is well publicized, apply for the proper permits, coordinate with local authorities, stay within the allotted boundaries making sure not to overcrowd the area, do not disrupt traffic or commerce, do not intimidate the peacekeeping agents placed there to protect you, and please do not damage the provided velvet ropes or barricades

Scrof ,

Lmao so true. Peaceful protests are but a joke to those with monopoly on violence. It’s only when you challenge that monopoly and spill the blood things start moving. General strikes are also an effective tool as they harm the wallets of those in power but those are arguably even harder to organize.

devnull406 ,

In our small town - just a few thousand people, in an extremely red area of an extremely red state: there is a lady that stands on a corner of the main street though town (1 of 10 intersections). She wears her mask with a Gaza flag pattern and holds a Gaza flag with a small poster board that says like “Free Gaza” or something.

I support her right to protest, but I’m not sure that it’s doing anything or what her goal even is. No idea what her protest is designed to do other than virtue signal.

On the other hand I spend time in February making sure my kids and friends/family on social media see images of civil rights protests - brave people attending school or sitting at a lunch counter.

I think protests can work and can change things, but context and strategy matter a lot.

V0lD ,

Protests are very good at causing civil unrest, damaging public property, making other peoples days worse, and swaying their view further away from your cause

If any of those are your goal, they can be quite effective

Mango ,

They help your rich opposition to identify you so they can quietly filter you into poverty or bring you an accident.

Waldowal ,
@Waldowal@lemmy.world avatar

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.

TengoDosVacas ,

What was unclear about “stop killing black people or anyone else just because you have a badge!”?

Twinklebreeze ,

All black people, or… /s

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •