353
How effective is protesting? According to historians and political scientists: very
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
353 points (98.6% liked)
politics
27280 readers
2404 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Short term gain. It's more about long term awareness. It is unfortunate for those now. But it's not something that changes overnight.
What is awareness going to do? People are already plenty aware of what's going on, this was one of the first genocides to be livestreamed.
Awareness of the future leaders of the regions. Some things are not an immediate fix.
ok so it will get fixed after the damage has already been done, got it
A reductive way to put it. But hey. If you have any better ideas, go get em.
I'm not saying I have better ideas, but if it doesn't fix anything until it's too late, "very" is not a good word to describe its effectiveness
But you crap on mine for understanding that I don't have any better ideas too, but am aware of what protests do in terms of change? Got it.
What's wrong with that? The title of this post was that protests are "very" effective. I'm arguing that they're not, and apparently so are you.
Well I'm arguing that you are arguing the exact same thing. So, either you're full of yourself and above self reflection or you're throwing a temper tantrum to a total stranger thinking that it has some bearing on how you come off. The "title" is the beginning of the conversation. Tangents happen. It's called conversation to most people.
The way you initially commented made it seem like you were arguing that long-term awareness justifies its classification as "very" effective and I'm arguing that it doesn't. And now you're saying that you're arguing the same thing I am, so I can't even tell what your stance is at this point or why you brought it up.
I didn't justify anything. I told you what protests do. Which should be the most normal thing to discuss in a post about protests. It's not like it's a post on cats or groceries. It's a linear connection.
Ok then let's dissect your statement.
Not a complete sentence so not even sure what this means. But when taking it into the context of my statement that you replied to (which was about the effectiveness of the protests), I assume you're saying that I was focusing on short-term gain in contrast to focusing on the long term when determining the effectiveness of the protests. Which hints that I should be taking different aspects into consideration and arguing differently. Which is a position, which I then assume you intend to defend.
If the topic wasn't about the effectiveness, which was the primary topic of the comment you replied to, that should have been clarified.
Based on what's inferred from the previous statement, this further validates its intent. It also brings up what specifically should be considered when arguing differently, which is "awareness".
"Some of what you said is correct, but..." Argumentative-style writing, reinforcing the intent stated earlier.
Based on the context of the previous statements, reiterates that the effectiveness is determined by the long term, specifically "awareness", as opposed to how I measured it.
So it seems like you were trying to justify something.
Jesus. You are insufferable. It's just a conversation. Get over yourself. You're wrong.