5 ms·

> The narrative that change happens through the mass public getting angry, forcing politicians to respond, is overblown at best. It used to work. As recent as

> The narrative that change happens through the mass public getting angry, forcing politicians to respond, is overblown at best. It used to work. As recent as a couple decades ago at least. The Arab spring that swept Middle East and parts of North Africa in 2010s comes to mind. Protesting and going to the streets, depending on where you are in this world, feels more like a dying art today rather than the stuff of revolution we've associated them with in the past. Feels wrong just typing that. Maybe we've just become insensitive to it all and do not have the will to fight governments. Maybe our collective thoughts and ideas are more homogenous than ever before.

GordonS 5y ago
Up to 10 million people took to the streets on 15-Feb 2003 to protest against the Iraq war[0], including 3 million in Rome alone (the largest anti-war protest in history). It changed nothing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...
foobarian 5y ago
It's very simple - we are well fed.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  This is my thought as well. We've reached a plateau where the average individual's circumstances are so comfortable that violent political action just doesn't make sense psychologically. The pie is so large that, even though we are getting a smaller and smaller slice compared to the elites, it doesn't trigger the type of primal response it did in the past. Should we hope this continues? Probably. If the situation deteriorates to the point that revolution becomes palatable the result would be mass human suffering.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  As the Romans said, "panem et circenses"; nowadays in the first world, even the relatively poor classes have access to a plenty of cheap entertainment and food; it's perhaps not good but it's enough to take off enough of the edge that people are merely angry but not so desperate (for the masses - individual exceptions of course happen, but they don't matter) to actually go ahead and risk their lives trying to change everything.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Actually it is even simpler than that - we increasingly hate our neighbor and therefore feel compelled to turn to the state for help, and view crusty rich old politicians (who work for the wealthy elites) as their saviors.
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
The Arab Spring was an enormous failure though. It brought about the first ever democratically elected leader in Egypt and he died in prison earlier this year under the military govt that overthrew democracy. This is pretty much the case everywhere the Arab Spring was a thing.
throw63738 5y ago
It is not dying art. Protests are now part of establishment, and are protected by police!
- chitowneats 5y ago
  The revolution will be sponsored.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    [flagged]
munk-a 5y ago
As someone born in the eighties I'd mention that it has actually gotten less unthinkable that mass riots happen in the western world as I've grown up. If everyone's reaction to January 6th surprised you it's because when most of the middle-aged working folks (including the folks in the media) were growing up this was unthinkable. The Arab Spring happened "over there" and ditto for North Africa - it's only recently that we've had substantive protests domestically. The WTO always brings a decent sized chunk of protest when it comes - but the biggest protest in my memory is Occupy Wall Street which ended up being incredibly peaceful and polite and thus absolutely ignored by the media. The largest one before that was probably the '92 LA Riots which I was born just late enough to not notice. Most of the more media grabbing protests of my life time have actually been sports related - the Red Sox winning and the Stanley Cup Riot. I don't know how true your statement really is.
- silexia 5y ago
  When will people realize peaceful protest does not work? Only violent revolution brings change.
Aunche 5y ago
> As recent as a couple decades ago at least. The Arab spring that swept Middle East and parts of North Africa in 2010s comes to mind. Which country has been better off after Arab spring?
int_19h 5y ago
Protesting in the streets, the way it's commonly understood today, is basically just a show. Why would the powers that be actually care about it? A nation-wide strike, now that would get attention.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Protesting in the streets, the way it's commonly understood today, is basically just a show. Why would the powers that be actually care about it? Because that kind of show is how the ideas it promotes are normalized, which is the foundation on which other action is built.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Is it, though, in this day and age? It seems that, in the developed world at least, ideas are promoted and normalized via mass media and/or the Internet, and protests are rather the outcome of than than the cause.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Is it, though, in this day and age? Yes. > It seems that, in the developed world at least, ideas are promoted and normalized via mass media and/or the Internet Sure, and mass protests are how marginalized groups leverage the selection biases of the mass media for their message.
Jetrel 5y ago
Honestly it's always been an implicit "threat of violence". I.e. it's an olive branch being extended to the powers that be, telling them that "we're willing to remain civil, for the time being, but we're giving you a stark warning that we're also willing to organize into large groups (demonstrated by the protesters mobilizing at all), and become violent if things don't change. The thing that's changed is that the people in power are no longer taking the implicit threat seriously. The dog is snarling at them, yet somehow, it's unthinkable that they're about to be bitten.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
> Maybe we've just become insensitive to it all and do not have the will to fight governments. I don't think we have - the outrage machine seems to be growing. Wasn't there widespread violent protests for most of the year leading up to the election last year? The problem is for the most part people's outrage and hatred has been redirected toward their fellow citizen and away from the ruling class, which is clearly not a coincidence.

GordonS 5y ago

Up to 10 million people took to the streets on 15-Feb 2003 to protest against the Iraq war[0], including 3 million in Rome alone (the largest anti-war protest in history). It changed nothing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...

foobarian 5y ago

It's very simple - we are well fed.

chitowneats 5y ago
This is my thought as well. We've reached a plateau where the average individual's circumstances are so comfortable that violent political action just doesn't make sense psychologically. The pie is so large that, even though we are getting a smaller and smaller slice compared to the elites, it doesn't trigger the type of primal response it did in the past. Should we hope this continues? Probably. If the situation deteriorates to the point that revolution becomes palatable the result would be mass human suffering.
PeterisP 5y ago
As the Romans said, "panem et circenses"; nowadays in the first world, even the relatively poor classes have access to a plenty of cheap entertainment and food; it's perhaps not good but it's enough to take off enough of the edge that people are merely angry but not so desperate (for the masses - individual exceptions of course happen, but they don't matter) to actually go ahead and risk their lives trying to change everything.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Actually it is even simpler than that - we increasingly hate our neighbor and therefore feel compelled to turn to the state for help, and view crusty rich old politicians (who work for the wealthy elites) as their saviors.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

The Arab Spring was an enormous failure though. It brought about the first ever democratically elected leader in Egypt and he died in prison earlier this year under the military govt that overthrew democracy. This is pretty much the case everywhere the Arab Spring was a thing.

throw63738 5y ago

It is not dying art. Protests are now part of establishment, and are protected by police!

chitowneats 5y ago
The revolution will be sponsored.
- munk-a 5y ago
  [flagged]

munk-a 5y ago

As someone born in the eighties I'd mention that it has actually gotten less unthinkable that mass riots happen in the western world as I've grown up. If everyone's reaction to January 6th surprised you it's because when most of the middle-aged working folks (including the folks in the media) were growing up this was unthinkable. The Arab Spring happened "over there" and ditto for North Africa - it's only recently that we've had substantive protests domestically. The WTO always brings a decent sized chunk of protest when it comes - but the biggest protest in my memory is Occupy Wall Street which ended up being incredibly peaceful and polite and thus absolutely ignored by the media. The largest one before that was probably the '92 LA Riots which I was born just late enough to not notice. Most of the more media grabbing protests of my life time have actually been sports related - the Red Sox winning and the Stanley Cup Riot. I don't know how true your statement really is.

silexia 5y ago
When will people realize peaceful protest does not work? Only violent revolution brings change.

Aunche 5y ago

> As recent as a couple decades ago at least. The Arab spring that swept Middle East and parts of North Africa in 2010s comes to mind. Which country has been better off after Arab spring?

int_19h 5y ago

Protesting in the streets, the way it's commonly understood today, is basically just a show. Why would the powers that be actually care about it? A nation-wide strike, now that would get attention.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Protesting in the streets, the way it's commonly understood today, is basically just a show. Why would the powers that be actually care about it? Because that kind of show is how the ideas it promotes are normalized, which is the foundation on which other action is built.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Is it, though, in this day and age? It seems that, in the developed world at least, ideas are promoted and normalized via mass media and/or the Internet, and protests are rather the outcome of than than the cause.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Is it, though, in this day and age? Yes. > It seems that, in the developed world at least, ideas are promoted and normalized via mass media and/or the Internet Sure, and mass protests are how marginalized groups leverage the selection biases of the mass media for their message.

Jetrel 5y ago

Honestly it's always been an implicit "threat of violence". I.e. it's an olive branch being extended to the powers that be, telling them that "we're willing to remain civil, for the time being, but we're giving you a stark warning that we're also willing to organize into large groups (demonstrated by the protesters mobilizing at all), and become violent if things don't change. The thing that's changed is that the people in power are no longer taking the implicit threat seriously. The dog is snarling at them, yet somehow, it's unthinkable that they're about to be bitten.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> Maybe we've just become insensitive to it all and do not have the will to fight governments. I don't think we have - the outrage machine seems to be growing. Wasn't there widespread violent protests for most of the year leading up to the election last year? The problem is for the most part people's outrage and hatred has been redirected toward their fellow citizen and away from the ruling class, which is clearly not a coincidence.