
Is There Any Point to Protesting? - rafaelc
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/is-there-any-point-to-protesting
======
dfabulich
Yes, there is a point to protesting. This paper used rainfall as a source of
exogenous variation to measure the effect of the Tea Party protests.

[https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-
abstract/128/4/1633/184...](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-
abstract/128/4/1633/1849540/Do-Political-Protests-Matter-Evidence-from-the-
Tea?redirectedFrom=fulltext)

 _Can protests cause political change, or are they merely symptoms of
underlying shifts in policy preferences? We address this question by studying
the Tea Party movement in the United States, which rose to prominence through
coordinated rallies across the country on Tax Day, April 15, 2009. We exploit
variation in rainfall on the day of these rallies as an exogenous source of
variation in attendance. We show that good weather at this initial,
coordinating event had significant consequences for the subsequent local
strength of the movement, increased public support for Tea Party positions,
and led to more Republican votes in the 2010 midterm elections. Policy making
was also affected, as incumbents responded to large protests in their district
by voting more conservatively in Congress. Our estimates suggest significant
multiplier effects: an additional protester increased the number of Republican
votes by a factor well above 1. Together our results show that protests can
build political movements that ultimately affect policy making and that they
do so by influencing political views rather than solely through the revelation
of existing political preferences._

~~~
mjburgess
The tea party was very astroturfed at the beginning -- how many of these
protests were co-funded by investors in republican campaigns?

If funding to protests were correlated with funding to candidates (which in
this case, it almost certainly is) then the variable with political
consequences is "amount of campaign funding".

~~~
aaron695
It was correlated with rainfall.

~~~
mjburgess
Yes, but are they looking at protests in the sense meant in OP?

A campaign rally funded and organized as a protest is not a protest. If these
were astroturfed then all they tell us that attendance at campaign rallies can
have political effects.

------
pmoriarty
_" Let me flash back to November 15th 1969, Washington DC and the Moratorium
for Peace in Vietnam. This was probably the single biggest anti-war
demonstration of the era, estimated at half a million by some and twice that
by others..._

 _" My scepticism about the demonstration’s effect seemed warranted when five
months later, at the end of April, 1970, the US extended the war into
Cambodia. In the protests that followed six students, four at Kent State in
Ohio and two at Jackson State in Mississippi, were shot dead. The upshot was
the biggest student strike in US history: more than 4 million students walking
out of classes in universities, colleges and high schools across the country.
Yet still the war did not end. Two and a half more years would pass before the
peace treaty was signed in Paris in January 1973. By this time there were
millions upon millions dead, disabled, bereaved, traumatised. Nonetheless, the
movement against the Vietnam war is widely considered the most "successful"
anti-war movement of modern times, against which more recent movements have
measured their "failure"._

 _" Many years later, I learned that the Moratorium demonstration was, in
fact, anything but ineffectual. In July 1969, Nixon and Kissinger had
delivered an ultimatum to the Vietnamese: if they did not accept US terms for
a ceasefire by November 1st, "we will be compelled – with great reluctance –
to take measures of the greatest consequences." The US government was
threatening and indeed actively planning a nuclear strike against North
Vietnam. In his Memoirs, Nixon admitted that the key factor in the decision
not to proceed with the nuclear option was that "after all the protests and
the Moratorium, American public opinion would be seriously divided by any
military escalation of the war." What would have been the world’s second
nuclear war was averted by our action, though we couldn’t have known it at the
time..."_

[http://www.socialsciencecollective.org/success-failure-
polit...](http://www.socialsciencecollective.org/success-failure-political-
myths/)

~~~
refurb
Nuclear weapons were never seriously considered for use in Vietnam either
during the French War or American war.

Saying your actions prevented something isn't that compelling if it was never
likely in the first place.

~~~
aaron-lebo
It sounds absurd because Nixon was paranoid but he wasn't completely stupid.
There would be no benefit to nuking North Vietnam. You'd enrage already pissed
off citizenry, turn the world against you, maybe bring the Soviet Union into
the war, and all for what, nuking Hanoi when the real problem was guerrilla
warfare? It makes no sense.

 _we will be compelled – with great reluctance – to take measures of the
greatest consequences_

It seems like the author is interpreting this as "nuclear weapons", but it
could very easily be political posturing, or an increase in conventional
conflict. Disappointing if it's exaggerated to make the author look better,
and to see that statement made and accepted so uncritically.

Just googling, can't find any good sources suggesting nukes were seriously
considered (as you said). Is there something more concrete than a favorable
interpretation of that quote?

edit: this seems to be Duck Hook

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Hook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Hook)

~~~
xerophyte12932
Is this real?

 _In his Memoirs, Nixon admitted that the key factor in the decision not to
proceed with the nuclear option was that "after all the protests and the
Moratorium, American public opinion would be seriously divided by any military
escalation of the war."_

Then that is concrete proof of nuclear considerations

~~~
1wd
The quoted part can be found on Google Books in "The Memoirs of Richard Nixon
-- By Richard Nixon". The context there does not mention the word "nuclear"
though, only "increased force". Some other quotes from there:

"My real concern was that these highly publicized efforts aimed at forcing me
to end the war were seriously undermining my behind-the-scenes attempt to do
just that."

"What counts is whether the demonstrations, regardless of intention, does in
fact give encouragement to Hanoi and thereby presumably prolongs the war."

"If a President - any President - allowed his course to be set by those who
demonstrate, he would betray the trust of all the rest. Whatever the issue, to
allow government policy to be made in the streets would destroy the democratic
process."

"I thought about the irony of this protest for peace. It had, I believed,
destroyed whatever small possibility may still have existed of ending the war
in 1969."

~~~
xerophyte12932
These are very interesting considering how they show the xact opposite side of
the OP's debate.

I find it very amusing when articles quote someone to support their arguments
even though the person actually disagrees with their PoV

------
paganel
It depends on how you protest and who does the protesting. The lame-ass
protests you see happening in most of the United States are ineffectual
because they don't threaten those in power, because they're either holiday-
looking marches or they're staged by students/young people, who are easy to
ignore.

The only way you can change something by protesting is by projecting power.
You do that either by the way you do the protesting, i.e. by actively engaging
the police forces in trying to reach the seats of power (Parliament,
Government's buildings) or by taking up in the streets the people who have the
most power come election day, i.e. lots and lots of middle class people.

Movements like BLM are ineffectual when protesting because they do neither of
the 2 things I mentioned above: they don't actively engage the powers in
Washington and they are not joined by lots and lots of middle class people. As
such, they'll remain ineffectual as long as nothing changes.

Source: me, a guy living in Eastern Europe who has grown-up by watching
protests toppling Governments and who has actively joined those kind of
protests once I grew up.

~~~
blubb-fish
> The lame-ass protests

Please, give me an example when ever in history a or a series of not-lame-ass
protests did change something.

G20 in Hamburg was a good example of several not-lame-ass protests which
didn't lead to anything beyond violence and destruction. Absolutely nothing
changed or started to change because of them.

~~~
Cozumel
A protest by its very definition is 'lame ass'. When you protest you're
accepting the status quo, that's why they're allowed even in places like
Turkey and China. They're a steam valve for people to feel they're doing
something then they go back to their television and Big Macs.

For a protest to achieve something it has to have a goal, and the goal is
always 'protesting', that doesn't change anything.

If you want to overthrow the Government then go shoot your local senator[0],
taking the kids and waving hand made protest signs at the local park isn't
going to do sh*t.

[0] It's an example. I'm in no way advocating anyone actually do this!

~~~
rdiddly
You're getting downvoted but you've hit on something: Most of these protest
movements are or aim to be nonviolent, whereas the power of the state is
always ultimately projected via violence. For a protest or movement to have
real impact, it has to either use violence itself (projecting political power
directly), or it has to prepare for a sustained nonviolent
absorption/withstanding of state violence (to get political power on its
side). Either way you need a lot more determination, organization, sustained
effort, and friends than it takes to organize a flash mob.

------
tmnvix
Remember the Occupy movement?

They had no immediate demands. People thought it was pointless and the
protestors copped a lot of criticism because of it.

Almost ten years later Bernie Sanders rallied millions around a platform that
was based on the idea of 'the one percent'. That wouldn't have happened if the
idea hadn't already been made popular by the Occupy movement.

So yes, there is a point to protesting - even if you don't have any demands.

~~~
whyenot
While Bernie Sanders may have rallied some people, in the end he didn't
actually end up accomplishing much of anything.

~~~
BrainInAJar
The Democratic Socialists of America went from 5,000 people to 25,000 people
in a year.

~~~
gozur88
Yes, and the National Socialists had similar growth in response. I'm not sure
that was a good bargain.

~~~
RobertoG
That was not a bargain because one event don't cause the other but both events
have a common cause.

The common cause is that people is tired of the establishment. When this
happen, some go one way and others the other way.

It's not new, it's a historical pattern.

------
d4nt
We've forgotten the core point of protesting. The article skirts near the
truth in the section about how hierarchical organisations are more effective
than the modern decentralised variety, but it frustratingly seems to still
miss the point.

The Iraq war protests, while massive, never seriously threatened the
government or the established order of things. Whereas, the Poll Tax riots in
the U.K. where relatively small, but Thatcher was ousted by her own party
within months.

Protests work when they threaten to overthrow the government. They could
either do that through existing democratic processes, via financial means
(e.g. tax revolt) or violently. But the point is the same, governments are
motivated by self preservation.

Protests need either powerful organisational structures with figureheads that
could assume power, or a broad enough base with sufficient reckless
abandonment that it _could_ turn into armed uprising. Without either of those
things, the incumbents in power are not threatened enough to act. The actual
event where you all march on the streets is just a demonstration that your
organisation is powerful enough to threaten the government. It's not meant to
be a fun day out with the kids.

~~~
mnm1
This is the only thing that makes sense. The people, governments, and
institutions being protested only know one language: violence. Otherwise, they
will hold onto their power no matter what, as long as they can. People often
forget or never learn this. There are lots of parents teaching their children
all sorts of fantasies about government, armies, and police, that these are
institutions that should be respected and trusted rather than feared,
disbelieved, and toppled. Attitudes like that lead to the ineffective protests
we've seen lately. The people being protested do not care if there are
millions in the streets if those millions will never pose a threat and those
millions cannot pose a threat if they have delusional misconceptions about
their role and the role of the people they're protesting. A lot of power and
responsibility lies with parents and many of them are too clueless to see the
world for what it is, let alone teach their children to react to it properly.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "This is the only thing that makes sense. The people, governments, and
> institutions being protested only know one language: violence."

Not true. They also understand money. I'd say money is the best thing to focus
on if you want a truly effective protest. Violence is too easy to condemn by
those not taking part. That's why I'd say we'd be better off arranging
protests as boycotts rather than marching in the street.

That said, there is a sense of community with collective gatherings like
street protests. I'd say fostering connections between people is probably the
main strength of protesting in the streets.

~~~
criddell
> That said, there is a sense of community with collective gatherings like
> street protests. I'd say fostering connections between people is probably
> the main strength of protesting in the streets.

Yes!

After Trump was elected, I went to my first street protests and I was shocked
at how positive it felt. The sense of community and togetherness was amazing.
I talked to more strangers that day than I had in the previous year. People
were kind, and funny, welcoming.

------
losteverything
"If a protest falls outside of the media, does it make an impact?"

No. But in my lifetime these protests changed life

Womens rights. NOW. riggs vs billy Jean king. Women took a job away from a
man. Now you cant afford to own a house without a woman's income.

Vietnam war. War is bad. Draft is evil. How america treated returning soldiers
means today it is taboo to say anything negative about a veteran. (yet 20
years earlier there was family shame if you didn't enlist for wwii)

Civil rights. Who even met a negro back in 1966??. Now who cares.

Gay rights. So.. Its not about inability to procreate... Before gays were
oddities. Now.. Who cares. Marriage even.

Animal rights. Yeah, out of sight... Lets protest. Cleveland amory. Aspca..
Now we turned the word "rescue" into a washed out version of saving.

Nukes. We forget that one nuke will wipe out life with years of darkness...
Remember iran in 1979??? "Nuke Iran"

YES. PROTESTS MATTER

~~~
ci5er
This all seems to be an expression of the zeitgeist. Popular perceptions
shift. Things get accomplished democratically (or through court fiat without
too much blow-back) and protesters protest, because, you know, man, that's
what they do. Other than creating some photo fodder for the National
Geographic 2100 edition of the natives, I'm not sure that protests do anything
more than pound the dirt on things that are already top-of-soul to the public.

In other words: Maybe minds are not changed. It seems to me, as I observe it,
the after effect is that they are hardened and protests are actively harmful
in that regard.

I'd like to hear your counter-x on that.

~~~
wpietri
My counter-example is me.

I was pretty ignorant about the US's long history of structural racism before
Ferguson. But when that blew up, I was surprised. Clearly, there was something
I didn't understand going on.

I started following a lot more African-American voices on Twitter (and do to
this day). I ended up reading more about the history, both distant and recent.
I dug into the economics of it. [1] But mainly, I listened to non-white
reactions to current events.

My initial reaction was often denial. "It can't be that bad!" And that's easy
to say when you have a small n. But as the n gets larger, I had to give that
denial up. What I wanted to believe about America was contradicted by the
facts.

I'm sure some people do bunker down in their denial rather than taking time to
hear out the protesters. But I suspect those are the people who wouldn't have
changed their minds regardless.

[1] E.g., [https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/7/15929196/police-
fine...](https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/7/15929196/police-fines-study-
racism) or
[http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873](http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873) or
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-
cas...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-
reparations/361631/)

------
donatj
If you're hoping the point is instant change, no.

If you're hoping for more realistic gradual change, then yes. Peaceful protest
in particular gets your message to the masses.

That's really the most your can hope for. Real actual change takes
generations.

~~~
orionblastar
Yes, peaceful protests achieve more than violent protests.

I feel bad that people die in protests or get arrested, etc. Current protests
have people throwing bottles and rocks at the police, even peeing into bottles
and splashing the police with their urine. That is not peaceful and provoking
people.

Better than protesting is getting people out to vote against Trump and the GOP
next election. Get some Democrats and third parties in Congress and make Trump
compromise. That would do more than protests ever will.

I don't get this identity politics, and gender politics, etc. Identity and
gender are social constructs I am told and the right does not control society
the left does. I've never fit into society and getting an identity. I'm like
an outcast because I don't have many social skills to get these social things.
If the left controls society by tv shows, music, movies, plays, education,
liberal arts, etc they would make better social constructs of identity and
gender to help pass legislation to protect people in certain groups. But
beware, for if you protect one or more types of genders or identities you have
to protect them all, even the ones you don't like or agree with.

~~~
ebola1717
That went to some weird places

\- Modern protests have largely been peaceful. There's a protest every week
nowadays, and the only violent ones I can recall in the past few years were
Baltimore and Charlottesville. Smaller scale violence does occur at these
protests, but it's usually a few bad actors.

\- It's a common and well documented tactic for governments to send
provocateurs to delegitimize protests

\- Protest organizers know better than anyone the importance of getting out
the vote, and are often part of that effort. Also, the midterm elections are
still a year away.

\- Uh not even gonna touch your identity politics rant tbh

~~~
guildwriter
There have been quite a lot of protests over the last few years that have gone
violent. G20, The Berkeley Milo Speech, The Free Speech Demonstrations in
Berkeley, Ferguson, etc. I don't know what you call "small scale" but these
events have had a substantial amount of brawling and property damage being
done. Maybe not Rodney King level, but definitely noteworthy.

In many of those cases, it's far more than just a few bad actors. If you
watched footage from the Milo event for example, the Antifa crowd had a lot of
people out in force. Ferguson had a lot of out of towners come in to create
trouble despite the locals trying to keep things calm.

------
PhasmaFelis
"The biggest mistake that was made during the Holocaust was that people didn't
speak up. The Holocaust took place because individuals, groups and nations
made decisions to act or not to act. The world was quiet then, but we must not
be quiet again. Now we know better. We must all commit to making the world a
better, kinder and more understanding place. Perhaps it's as simple as
speaking out when you see something wrong and saying, "I know better." But
please, never be a bystander or a perpetrator."

\--Sonia K., Holocaust survivor.
[http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/opinions/holocaust-survivor-
tr...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/opinions/holocaust-survivor-trump-
charlottesville-sonia-k-opinion/index.html)

Fascists gain power when good people stay silent out of fear or ambivalence,
when the millions who might oppose them each believe themselves to be alone.
Protests may not cause direct and immediate policy changes, but they let
allies know that they are _not_ alone, they let enemies know that they are not
in total control. That's huge. It's vital.

------
firasd
In terms of anti-Trump Resistance, I was skeptical in the beginning, but the
Women's March did show that getting together in big numbers gets people's
attention. If nothing else it manages to rattle a President who is addicted to
watching TV!

But I do think one big problem is how to channel the energy the American Left
has for marching, protest etc. into voting. Maybe there needs to be a 'March
to the polls' on voting days! Everyone from a specific district or area get
together, then groups go to their specific local voting locations.

~~~
CalChris
Well, Hillary did get _at least_ 2.9M more votes than Trump. So voting
wouldn't seem to be a problem. Instead we have a gerrymandering problem, we
have a voter suppression problem and we have an election that was probably
hacked by Trump and the Russians.

~~~
firasd
True. But the problem is that Democratic voters are overly focused on the
Presidency and don't turn out in large enough numbers in off-year elections.
The reason the GOP has a stranglehold on government (including being able to
gerrymander and suppress votes) is because they won big in the 2010
Congressional elections.

------
featherverse
No of course there isn't.

And if you're only just now figuring that out, now in 2017? Then you haven't
been paying attention.

Come on, protesting hasn't been real since the requirement of having
"permits", and the creation of "free speech zones". We live in a tyrannical
police state masquerading as a peaceful democracy, where trouble makers are
gunned down by death squads who are later pardoned by the courts.

Just posting a comment like this on the internet will lead to downvoting and
social penalties. Did you know that this site participates in the practice of
"hell-banning"? That is where they silently blacklist people for expressing
their unpopular opinions about any particular subject. Those people can no
longer contribute, but they believe that they can because the system lets them
post. But nobody ever sees their comments. It's the exact same thing as what
the government does.

Many of "the people" belong to the tyrants' pyramid of control and those who
don't are brainwashed by it.

"Is there any point to protesting?", hah I say. Wake up.

~~~
kelukelugames
I know reddit has shadow bans but I am not aware of it on HN. Do you have any
proof?

~~~
featherverse
No they don't, they just ban people. Maybe they used to, but it's an unpopular
method.

~~~
4ad
A HN ban is a shadowban. The user doesn't know he is banned unless being told,
and he can post normally. You can, however, see all dead posts by enabling
showdead option in your HN settings. I encourage everybody to do that. There
are extremely few spam posts, most dead posts are dead for different reasons.
Often I see people having been shadowbanned for _years_.

------
thucydides
Vietnam-era Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara later claimed the catalyst
for his change of heart on Vietnam policy was when Norman Morrison burned
himself alive outside the Pentagon in protest.

I suppose that's one data point in favor of the effectiveness of self-
immolation, at least

~~~
pjc50
A self-immolation of an impoverished street vendor is credited with starting
the Arab Spring.

~~~
tajen
The self-immolation of dozens of Palestinians and Tibetans didn't change much.
Immolation might be good when the balance of powers is toi strong, but the
conflict isn't muddied yet.

------
jccalhoun
I would like to think that there is but it seems like any time the current
administration gets significant negative reaction it just turns even further
towards racism. As for local members of congress, I live in Indiana and our
republican senator seems content to toe the line despite the fact that many of
my friends called in protest of the healthcare repeal and I did not see a
single post on his facebook page or at him on twitter that supported his vote.

My fear is that Pence does somehow end up as president since he is both a
career politician who knows how to work the system and seems to want a
theocracy.

~~~
formula1
My first reaction is to not let the threat of a foolish group of leaders to
become more foolish override ones place to voice their opinion.

Second thought is that these foolish leaders stay in power as long as they can
point a finger and or claim superiority

I don't think silence helps but it's important to stay principaled and not
turn protests into riots which gets difficult at high volume and where people
are instigating it

------
jancsika
The author puts this transitional, rhetorical statement in the middle of the
piece:

> The question, then, is what protest is for.

and somehow doesn't even realize that they largely answered it in the quote
that seems like it was included to fill out a "rule of threes" set of examples
of protests from the 70s:

> and the pushy, calculating Earth First! movement, which sought to “make it
> more costly for those in power to resist than to give in.”

If we're talking about protests throughout history as a tactic for change,
that quote encapsulates not only the purpose of protests but also the metric
by which we retroactively measure their success. (I say retroactively because
the most important protests happen under dictatorial regimes that typically
aren't keen on accurately communicating to a resistance movement how much
they've managed to deplete the dictator's coffers.)

There are certainly also such things as symbolic protests, but it's a truism
that those are more amorphous and less likely to lead to change than more
serious ones. And if the idea was to use the word "protest" as a shorthand for
the set of symbolic protests in the U.S. that seem at the moment not to have
had any measurable effect, that is unclear and prone to confusion.

------
forapurpose
When I hear this question, my answer is: Imagine the world without the
protests. Imagine if nobody protested Trump's actions, or Putin's. Imagine if
something horrible happened and nobody responded, they just went about their
days. Imagine the terrible, demoralizing, crushing silence.

Protests are a public service message that what is happening is not ok with
your neighbors; that it matters to them. That's why I encourage people to show
up, even if it seems pointless; each additional body matters: 10 people is
still better than none; 100 better than 10; 1,000 better than 100, etc.
Silence = consent.

~~~
gonmf
Oh yes, imagine the silence of people peacefully talking with each other and
forming their own opinions, and come election time change the government.
Having opinions without being told by the opinions makers, crushing.

Imagine the property that wasn't destroyed, the lives that weren't lost, the
sides that didn't become more and more polarised.

~~~
forapurpose
I'm against any violence. Protest does not at all require violence.

------
dmichulke
Protests are a consequence of a democracy that isn't.

If people had power, they would cast votes (on laws or representatives)
instead of wasting their precious time walking around with little to no
observable effect.

~~~
setr
Well no, because you still need to convince the _majority_ to your opinion...
your single individual vote is still meaningless on the macro scale

~~~
NumberCruncher
Why should the majority share my opinion? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it would be
boring, because there wouldn't be discussions any more.

Different opinions may coexist.

~~~
setr
....because in a democracy, majority vote rules

So obviously if you want something to change...

------
gt_
There are point(s) to protesting the state, but not other groups of fringe
citizens who disagree with you. They would be better dealt with by ignoring
them.

The people showing up at these 'stand-off' style events are not wrong, but
they are probably just short-sighted and distracted by boogeymen.

~~~
kmonsen
There is a point in counter protests, you show others that they have good
people on their side.

~~~
skybrian
Doing a counter-protest the next day or at a different location would also do
that.

------
ghusbands
The Boston counter-protest clearly had some effect. A large number of
nationalist rallies have been cancelled [1], as a result. So there does seem
to be a point.

Also, it does raise public awareness of matters, in general, as long as the
media doesn't just ignore or downplay things.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/89980448626848563...](https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/899804486268485632)

------
guardiangod
Do not go gentle into that good night

Dylan Thomas, 1914 - 1953

    
    
      Do not go gentle into that good night,
      Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
    
      Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
      Because their words had forked no lightning they
      Do not go gentle into that good night.
    
      Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
      Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
    
      Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
      And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
      Do not go gentle into that good night.
    
      Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
      Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
    
      And you, my father, there on the sad height,
      Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
      Do not go gentle into that good night.
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

~~~
JBReefer
That poem means the exact opposite of what you seem to think it means (like
most allegories, to be fair).

~~~
cgmg
What does it mean?

~~~
1000units
It's artsy nonsense pandering to people who think unqualified anger arising
from helpless dissatisfaction and lack of composure is cool and praiseworthy.
It's not, just like the protests.

~~~
cgmg
I'm surprised by your strong reaction. What makes you think it's artsy
nonsense?

------
eqtn
There was a protest in state of Tamil Nadu, India in regards to
jellikettu(bull racing) where the central government banned it. The whole
state protested, and the ban was lifted.

~~~
averagewall
Is that a good thing though? Maybe the government banned it because they found
that most of the population is opposed to it. Then it got reinstated because
of a loud minority. Why should a loud minority get their way at the expense of
everyone else?

~~~
Larrikin
If most people were opposed to it, then they would have voted out the law
makers who reversed the ban.

~~~
contingencies
For some subjective perspective, Tamil Nadu is basically a hardcore Hindu
area. The people are positively fervent. It seems like Tamils sort of see
themselves as protectors of ancient tradition (they are one of the oldest
communities in India). It's really conservative: in the cities you rarely see
women alone on the street. If you go there during election time the election
posters are _hilarious_. Examples:
[https://goo.gl/photos/nLsD5XFYT3t2XVpu8](https://goo.gl/photos/nLsD5XFYT3t2XVpu8)
[https://goo.gl/photos/AmZrD94WWBk3ddup8](https://goo.gl/photos/AmZrD94WWBk3ddup8)
[https://goo.gl/photos/ETSdFDftX8fvcLVU8](https://goo.gl/photos/ETSdFDftX8fvcLVU8)

------
unabridged
Maybe protests do something, but they are less important than the primary
elections every 2 years. The House can be completely changed every 2 years.
People just need to get smarter with their voting and candidates will start to
represent the people.

The time spent protesting is better spent fielding candidates, coming up with
a platform that helps 80% of the population, and going door to door to spread
the message.

------
balance_factor
An easy way to test this article's hypothesis would be to sit down with the
old hands who help organize these protests - let's say, some of the old former
SNCC and Black Panther types advising the younger Black Lives Matter
organizers, and ask them if they think a series of demonstrations are the
means to change things. I am pretty confident, because I have spent a lot of
time around organizers of different colors who go back to the 1960s (or 1930s)
that 99% of the time, they are going to say no. It's a very easy way to
falsify this hypothesis. I mean, you might get this reaction from some 16 year
old who has come to their first demonstration, but you would rarely get it
from someone seriously involved. New Yorker articles about such matters
usually have some flaws, but this one is much worse than usual as he didn't do
a very simple thing to falsify his hypothesis.

------
jondubois
A protest can only work if the people who are in power feel that their lives
are being threatened. They get death threats all the time and they take notice
of big upticks in numbers.

If enough people want a politician gone, they will be. There is a point when
people's will can transcend the boundaries of the law.

------
everyone
If you want to influence someone, or some orgnanisation, you need leverage. It
could a reward, or a threat, _something_. Otherwise how can you motivate them
to accommodate your wishes?

_ Eg. A well organised strike threatens the businesses profits and can be
effective.

_ But simply marching on the street, who cares about that?

~~~
orionblastar
This is the 21st century, protest via social network sites. Tell your
grandmother that Trump is a jerk, etc by uploading a meme or something so she
can share it with her friends, etc. :)

Sign an online petition to boycott a place that does something wrong. Write to
advertisers and sponsors of their advertising that you will boycott them as
long as they support that group and tell your friends and family.

Maybe someone can make a protest website called iprotest.com or something?

------
Animats
What's worked recently in the US in protesting? Gay marriage succeeded,
transgender rights backfired, some local success on $15 minimum wage. The
Bundy Malheur takeover fizzled out. Big wins on gun rights. Any visible
pattern?

~~~
horsecaptin
One might argue that gay marriage succeeded because it is good for the
economy. All gays I know are incredibly smart, savvy and professionally
successful. They worked for many years and became a financial and political
force, not to mention they succeeded in getting people to like them and
empathize with their cause.

~~~
nocoder
I think this is the point. The success of any protest movement depends on
whether it can be galvanized into a political force. This can happen either
when the protesters have economic and financial influence in terms of sheer
numbers. Alternatively, it can happen when the protesters learn to organise in
a way that they become politically relevant by voting along certain lines or
candidate, but even here the numbers are important.

------
Overtonwindow
A viewpoint from the political world: In a word, no. This is because the
protests are mostly running on raw emotion and not sustained. I see people
screaming at empty buildings on the weekends in DC and it accomplished
absolutely nothing. If you really want to make change in America with a
protest, it must be consistent, and constant. Show up at 10am on a Tuesday at
the US Capitol. Return every single day. These one-off venting of outrage is
too easily ignored.

------
wiz21c
Protesting is also a personal act. Regardless of the actual usefulness of
protesting, protesting definitely helps us to actually not resign. Protesting
in itself is a commitment of oneself to a cause. Not protesting is definitely
putting oneself away from that cause. So the question of the consequence on
the "system" is, to me, second. I protest because I disagree, then I protest
to remove the cause of that disagreement.

------
dunk010
The author manages to completely rip off Adam Curtis's excellent documentary
film Hypernormalisation without a single reference to it. Well done.

------
kazagistar
Protests speak, but so does money, and since citizens united, it speaks louder
them ever before, drowning it the relative whisper of the people.

------
sopooneo
Perhaps not directly. But might initially ineffective protests consolidate and
inspire the participants towards larger actions?

------
darepublic
Right leaning = "wing nut", Centrist = "quailing".

------
vacri
You certainly get a lot more bang for your protestor buck when you're able to
show the politicians that their own electorate is against issue X.

~~~
kelukelugames
Are there modern examples of this?

Follow up questions: 1) Especially for issues relevant to the tech community?
2) Can that be done by an average citizen?

~~~
topspin
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA)

About the only supporters those bills had were IP owners; effectively everyone
else in the US was against them and Congress got the message.

------
orlandob
Gotta pay rent.

------
honestoHeminway
You need to very well understand what you are protesting against, that this
monolith of power is not a monolith - more something like a medieval wall,
with cracks and fractures. You need to find these fractures, and apply force
only to these weak points, to bring down a avalanch.

And then what? Then the machinery will repair itself- replacing damaged
careers with new up-jumped individuals and the process will continu.

The goal should actually be to understand the nature of humanity, not as in
"I-understand-to-feel-self-rightous-about-it", but in a "Know-your-bricks-to-
build-a-house" way.

There will always be those who claw and crawl for power and control. Taking
away that control, for example by a basic income, is percived as hostility
towards by that mindset. So protesting for it, will not lead to change.

Now, if you state that anyone who recives basic income must join a group- who
strives for a endavour, and that the most succesfull of these groups shall be
taken as example policy in that sector.

You only subtile changed the demand. But you crafted it more compatible to
human nature. Suddenly protests can be succesfull.

------
lngnmn
Only a hipster snowflake's magazine could put such question in a headline.

A crowd is a major hardwired social heuristic. When someone sees a crowd of
protestors or supporters almost automatic mental processes of estimating it's
size and more importantly of taking a side wether one is with it or against it
are triggered. It also forms a emotionally charged long lasting memory - a
hostile crowd is a major life threat. Crowd of supporters is associated with
protection and change. This is freshman's social psychology 101.

Number of likes, BTW, and numbers related to social events in general works in
the same way. Social heuristics are hardwired and hence easily exploited by
media or sales departments. The best strategy is to convince a potential buyer
that there is a presumed crowd of enthusiastic buyers _behind_ him. Tesla is
the obviously example.

Crowd of protesters is a major concern even for Trump.

