3 ms·

I had a conversation about this with my French teacher a few months ago It was striking how different our outlooks were on the effectiveness of protests. Her p

I had a conversation about this with my French teacher a few months ago It was striking how different our outlooks were on the effectiveness of protests. Her position was that together, she and her fellow protesters _could_ enact change. When I look around, the stench of preconsigned defeat permeates the space. We've lived in it for so long that we've become blind to it. We've learned to be helpless. Not to mention, when a fresh face inevitably proposes large scale action, the responses always include FUD about needing to solve the poverty issue first so that participants can even attend such action. The end result is that it's stopped at the idea stage, nothing changes, and six months later a new freah face will repeat the cycle. Part of the issue is that without social safety nets, much of the public is afraid that missing a week to a month of work will guarantee them homelessness.

antonymoose 10mo ago
I feel like, historically, protests have beared fruit in America for leftist / progressive causes. Everything from Suffragettes and Civil Rights / anti-Vietnam to the Floyd protests of the modern day. Maybe they didn’t overthrow an entire government but the marked forward progress of each one is clear.
- asveikau 10mo ago
  I feel there is currently a bit of of internalized propaganda about protests being stupid or worse. Witness any cause which involves protesting by blocking the street. You get an army of internet trolls talking up the idea that this is somehow evil. In the civil rights era, events like crossing bridges on foot were a key feature, done by people like Martin Luther King. In the modern era, if you see a protest on the golden gate bridge as an example, they'll be called terrorists and people will advocate for violence against them.
  - watersb 10mo ago
    35 years ago, protesters blocked the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm pretty sure they were protesting the war with Iraq (Bush the First) in response to Iraq's invasion and capture of oil wells in Kuwait. But far more clear is my memory of the searing rage of a coworker that day. She was flying on it, the hatred coming out of her mouth. It shocked me for a couple of reasons. She was close in age to me, just out of school. I think that my college years had led me to presume to most young people would be more sympathetic to opposition of general warfare. There was lots of talk of forcing military enlistment among people our age. But the main reason was that the trigger for her rage was the temporary threat to her right to drive her car wherever she wanted to. You think Americans are nuts about their guns, don't you ever threaten their right to kill people with cars. Any sympathy she could have felt for the protesters' cause was gone because they blocked a highway.
    - cool_dude85 10mo ago
      And nowadays, if this happened in Florida, she could pretty credibly run the protesters down in the street and avoid even getting charged.
    - ThrowawayTestr 10mo ago
      Unpopular opinion but blocking traffic is akin to cutting power lines. Don't fuck with people's utilities.
      - ronsor 10mo ago
        Ignoring things such as emergency services being blocked, imagine if protesters could "block" the Internet. That would not garner much sympathy.
      - krapp 10mo ago
        Unpopular opinion but social progress never been made while the government or the people feel safe and comfortable.
        ThrowawayTestr 10mo ago
        Everyone says this until it's your neighborhood hosting a protest.
        krapp 10mo ago
        And yet it's still true. If it comes down to my rights or your convenience, you're just going to have a bad day.
        bigstrat2003 10mo ago
        If you can't advance your position without being a dick to others, your position doesn't deserve to advance.
  - 10000truths 10mo ago
    Oh, there was plenty of internalized propaganda about civil disobedience being the "wrong approach" [0] - it is by no means a new phenomenon. Such criticism was common enough during the civil rights movement that MLK addressed it in Letter from Birmingham Jail: > You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. [0] https://reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1l7b30j https://reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1l7b30j
    - asveikau 10mo ago
      > Oh, there was plenty of internalized propaganda about civil disobedience being the "wrong approach" Yes, I'm aware of this. But I think it's surprising to me because decades later, MLK et al. are nearly universally accepted to have been right, but people using the same tactics are not. But the cyclical propaganda lines do cross the decades. In the Bush 2 years I was rather taken by similarities between discussions of the Vietnam war or Watergate (which I read about in books or heard about from boomers) and what was then current events. A lot of the right wing stuff we've encountered more recently reminds me a lot of the 90s, when Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich bursted on the scene. All of the same talking points go in waves. Nothing new under the sun.
  - kelseyfrog 10mo ago
    Thank you for your comment. It led me to looking up what anti-protest propaganda[1] looks like. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_paradigm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_paradigm
  - bigstrat2003 10mo ago
    > Witness any cause which involves protesting by blocking the street. You get an army of internet trolls talking up the idea that this is somehow evil. "Evil" is a stronger word than I would use, but I think it's fair to say that blocking the streets is both reckless and extremely antisocial. Making my life harder when I didn't do anything to wrong you doesn't make me more sympathetic to your cause, it makes me think "wow the people who support X are real dicks". Also I like how you label this as a position espoused by "Internet trolls", as though no normal decent person could be irritated when they get screwed over by protesters.
- nebula8804 10mo ago
  I've been thinking about them recently. Did any of them "directly" threaten capital? I'd argue that Suffragettes and Civil Rights ultimately helped capital. Maybe anti-Vietnem since it directly affected defense contractors income streams?
pixelready 10mo ago
I believe this is the intended effect of maintaining some level of homelessness and unemployment in American policy decisions. Full employment and suffering reduction through a strong safety net are the correct moral imperatives, but they reduce the leverage of a central authority. You can see whose priorities win out. I think there is a soft self-destruction happening among millennials and beyond in the US and similar societies. They have been so worn down by living in a system that refuses to invest properly in them that they are taking the fatalist route of simply refusing to participate in the building of a future. Limited procreation, disengaging from politics or mindlessly bandwagoning demagogues, deaths of despair, etc… it’s not universal but the trend lines are certainly worrying.

antonymoose 10mo ago

I feel like, historically, protests have beared fruit in America for leftist / progressive causes. Everything from Suffragettes and Civil Rights / anti-Vietnam to the Floyd protests of the modern day. Maybe they didn’t overthrow an entire government but the marked forward progress of each one is clear.

asveikau 10mo ago
I feel there is currently a bit of of internalized propaganda about protests being stupid or worse. Witness any cause which involves protesting by blocking the street. You get an army of internet trolls talking up the idea that this is somehow evil. In the civil rights era, events like crossing bridges on foot were a key feature, done by people like Martin Luther King. In the modern era, if you see a protest on the golden gate bridge as an example, they'll be called terrorists and people will advocate for violence against them.
- watersb 10mo ago
  35 years ago, protesters blocked the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm pretty sure they were protesting the war with Iraq (Bush the First) in response to Iraq's invasion and capture of oil wells in Kuwait. But far more clear is my memory of the searing rage of a coworker that day. She was flying on it, the hatred coming out of her mouth. It shocked me for a couple of reasons. She was close in age to me, just out of school. I think that my college years had led me to presume to most young people would be more sympathetic to opposition of general warfare. There was lots of talk of forcing military enlistment among people our age. But the main reason was that the trigger for her rage was the temporary threat to her right to drive her car wherever she wanted to. You think Americans are nuts about their guns, don't you ever threaten their right to kill people with cars. Any sympathy she could have felt for the protesters' cause was gone because they blocked a highway.
  - cool_dude85 10mo ago
    And nowadays, if this happened in Florida, she could pretty credibly run the protesters down in the street and avoid even getting charged.
  - ThrowawayTestr 10mo ago
    Unpopular opinion but blocking traffic is akin to cutting power lines. Don't fuck with people's utilities.
    - ronsor 10mo ago
      Ignoring things such as emergency services being blocked, imagine if protesters could "block" the Internet. That would not garner much sympathy.
    - krapp 10mo ago
      Unpopular opinion but social progress never been made while the government or the people feel safe and comfortable.
      - ThrowawayTestr 10mo ago
        Everyone says this until it's your neighborhood hosting a protest.
        krapp 10mo ago
        And yet it's still true. If it comes down to my rights or your convenience, you're just going to have a bad day.
        bigstrat2003 10mo ago
        If you can't advance your position without being a dick to others, your position doesn't deserve to advance.
- 10000truths 10mo ago
  Oh, there was plenty of internalized propaganda about civil disobedience being the "wrong approach" [0] - it is by no means a new phenomenon. Such criticism was common enough during the civil rights movement that MLK addressed it in Letter from Birmingham Jail: > You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. [0] https://reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1l7b30j https://reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1l7b30j
  - asveikau 10mo ago
    > Oh, there was plenty of internalized propaganda about civil disobedience being the "wrong approach" Yes, I'm aware of this. But I think it's surprising to me because decades later, MLK et al. are nearly universally accepted to have been right, but people using the same tactics are not. But the cyclical propaganda lines do cross the decades. In the Bush 2 years I was rather taken by similarities between discussions of the Vietnam war or Watergate (which I read about in books or heard about from boomers) and what was then current events. A lot of the right wing stuff we've encountered more recently reminds me a lot of the 90s, when Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich bursted on the scene. All of the same talking points go in waves. Nothing new under the sun.
- kelseyfrog 10mo ago
  Thank you for your comment. It led me to looking up what anti-protest propaganda[1] looks like. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_paradigm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_paradigm
- bigstrat2003 10mo ago
  > Witness any cause which involves protesting by blocking the street. You get an army of internet trolls talking up the idea that this is somehow evil. "Evil" is a stronger word than I would use, but I think it's fair to say that blocking the streets is both reckless and extremely antisocial. Making my life harder when I didn't do anything to wrong you doesn't make me more sympathetic to your cause, it makes me think "wow the people who support X are real dicks". Also I like how you label this as a position espoused by "Internet trolls", as though no normal decent person could be irritated when they get screwed over by protesters.
nebula8804 10mo ago
I've been thinking about them recently. Did any of them "directly" threaten capital? I'd argue that Suffragettes and Civil Rights ultimately helped capital. Maybe anti-Vietnem since it directly affected defense contractors income streams?

pixelready 10mo ago

I believe this is the intended effect of maintaining some level of homelessness and unemployment in American policy decisions. Full employment and suffering reduction through a strong safety net are the correct moral imperatives, but they reduce the leverage of a central authority. You can see whose priorities win out. I think there is a soft self-destruction happening among millennials and beyond in the US and similar societies. They have been so worn down by living in a system that refuses to invest properly in them that they are taking the fatalist route of simply refusing to participate in the building of a future. Limited procreation, disengaging from politics or mindlessly bandwagoning demagogues, deaths of despair, etc… it’s not universal but the trend lines are certainly worrying.