Comment by goatlover
12 hours ago
I don't understand this comment. What protesting does is let other people know there is dissent, and some people are willing to take to the streets. Enough people do that and you have networking effects as other people are motivated to take a stand. It makes the mainstream media, and representatives feel pressure to address the issue. I've been to a number of protests over the last year, and I can tell you there are even more people honking in support who drive by.
The counter argument to that is in the age of the social media there is no need to take to the streets to show that there is dissent. Everyone the folks on the street could reach will know about the dissent anyway.
Motivating other people to take a stand -- I do not think this is true either. A fraction of the folks who would support the issue regardless may join the protest on the street. But that would be those who support the issue already.
Change comes from the ballot box. Enough people in the street might influence the next election (sometimes for the issue they are advocating; sometimes in the opposite direction). But 6+ months from the next election the effect I suspect is small. My 2c.
> The counter argument to that is in the age of the social media there is no need to take to the streets to show that there is dissent.
you can find dissent to anything and everything at any time on the internet. Dissent exists always. Dissent that causes people to take the streets and risk being murdered, gassed, beaten, arrested, or even just tracked using facial recognition and fake cell phone towers, that's something else entirely.
> Motivating other people to take a stand -- I do not think this is true either.
People in this discussion have already stated that protests have caused them to reevaluate their position on things protesters were demonstrating against.
> Change comes from the ballot box.
If that were true there'd never have been any change in countries that aren't democracies or where voting was a complete sham only to give the appearance of one. Fairly elected or otherwise, politicians can ignore mean facebook posts. They can't as easily ignore thousands of people protesting outside of their home or office.
Where democracy exists at all, protests can change people's minds about their situation, especially when those protests demonstrate and expose horrific abuses by the state. Even if I didn't support whatever was being protested, if I witness things that shouldn't happen in my country and the current administration defends those things and/or threatens worse, I'm going to reconsider my support the current administration and I won't need 7+ months to do it
A reply on social media is taking a stand?
It seems more of a fetid cesspit. It promotes anger, division and controversy rather than shared ideas, cohesive action and positive social change. I think I need an example of the good social media can do for society and collective action.
> A reply on social media is taking a stand?
No. I only said that spreading information that there is dissent does not require taking to the street.
2 replies →
You're describing how protests energize people who already agree. I'm asking how they persuade people who don't. The honks are from your side. The people you need are either tuning out or getting annoyed. Visibility used to equal influence when everyone watched the same three channels. That's not the world we live in anymore.
Protests themselves probably aren't good at convincing people, but they can bring awareness to an issue. They can persuade politicians they need to take action on an issue.
Protests aren't trying to reach the people who've already decided they're wrong. They're trying to reach the unpersuaded masses who don't currently agree or disagree.
Obviously this requires the protesters to make a bit of a judgment call. Do I think the typical person leans so strongly towards my side that they'll take it when I force the issue, even if I annoy them? Sometimes the answer is no, and I've definitely seen people do counterproductive protests that way. But sometimes the answer is yes.
> You're describing how protests energize people who already agree. I'm asking how they persuade people who don't.
That's not the intent.
Yup, the intent is for the protesters to pat one another on the back and feel superior to the grey masses.
The No Kings protests were big enough to be all over social media as well as mainstream media. Members of the administration and Congressional Republicans tried to characterize it as far leftist radicals. The president made a disgusting AI video dumping on the protestors. So it was big enough to get under their skin.
Protests are one way We the People remind the government who they're supposed to be representing. Who has the real power in a democracy.