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
31081 readers
2620 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.