When mass communication was in the hands of the Government or a power elite, protesting was the only way to get a message outside of the establishment channels. It has a proud tradition in the founding of the US, to suffrage, to Civil Rights, to Tianneman Square and beyond. It has been THE WAY to raise awareness and effect change.
Cable has given us way more than three networks. The internet has given a forum, a voice, a hashtag, a YouTube to channel to EVERY cause without prejudice as to how vital or how insignificant it might be. The media is no longer in the hands of the power elite. It has been democratized. We The People are the media.
So what is the point of taking it to the street and protesting in modern times.
“Raising Awareness” feels like a synonym for spamming the community. Protests are to one’s awareness are as Spam is to one’s email. This is not hyperbole. How many spam emails did you get today? Check your junk folder. How many different forms of social injustice have been brought to your attention today without your seeking them out?
There are so many ways of getting one’s message out these days that I admit my suspicion is immediately aroused any time I become aware of an actual physical protest. I think “I hear you all day long whether I want to or not on the internet, on the TV, everywhere. I can get your entire message and spiel, raise my awareness and debate it’s merits with literally a click. So… that being true, why did you come all this way. Why are you here, don’t you know that this is perhaps the least efficient method of making your voice heard? Don’t you know that the very internet and media that has given you and your cause such an unprecedented and reaching voice, is also going to warn those that don’t want to hear it to stay away that day? Don’t you know that you are going to attract the true believers and you will be preaching to the choir? Don’t you know that you are inviting the dangerous wing nuts both on your side and on the opposition to clash in a way that nobody who cares about other people would want to have happen? Why are you doing this?”
One sometimes gets the feeling that protesting is used as more of a signifier of virtue, or a social opportunity nowadays.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it still is a vital catalyst for social progress. 40 years ago I would have had no doubt.
I’m not sure how effective protests have ever been. I am under the impression that what actually triggers change is when a substantial majority of the people in power start consistently demanding it.
Occupy Wall Street had a legitimate message. The economic engine of this country is funneling increasing amounts of all wealth into the pockets of 0.1%. It’s not just that the top 0.1% or 1% are richer. That’s fine, most people are ok with that. It’s that it is so extreme that those people might as well be aristocracy. Relative to the 0.1%, people making 6 figures are peasants.
Anyways, it was an enormous protest, and it accomplished zilch. Eventually, I think the wealth disparity will become so obvious that the pool of stupid poor people who think they are rich will stop voting for the policies of the rich. Might take a long time, however.
…if it weren’t for protests and mass co-ordinated action Obamacare would have been repealed and replaced already.
We do live in a world dominated by social media now. But that social media is both highly localised and personally curated. What does President Trump see on Twitter?
This is what he sees.
https://twitter.com/trumps_feed
Those of us on social media have created our own bubbles: our own feedback loops. Things have actually gone in the opposite direction of what you think. Hashtags are great for uniting people who are all on “the same page.” But without “boots on the ground” then you cannot “penetrate the bubble.” You don’t see spam emails. You don’t see what you have blocked/muted/ignored. But if you are watching the nightly news then you are going to see nationwide protests.
Despite the digital revolution bands are still more profitable selling music CD’s than relying on revenue from digital downloads. And protests are not going to go anywhere either, because sometimes “oldschool” is best.
I think that’s pretty debatable, and I would disagree with it.
This is a very very good point. I sometimes agree with what you are saying and I think we sometimes create our insular worlds to avoid the constant spamming of unwanted viewpoints we are subjected to. Is the answer to seek more and more aggressive ways to break through some one’s social spam filter? If they have chosen to block out a particular viewpoint, isn’t that their choice that should be respected?
There is a slippery slope between the right to get a message out and someone else’s right to ignore disagree or not even listen to it. Ultimately, I think I side with the right of the person not to be spammed. The fact a person can chose to hear a message should they want to means that the message has gotten out to the point that forcing it is not necessary. Did that make sense to you?
I don’t think it accomplishes much, because most people know the people protesting aren’t exactly swing voters. The tea party protesters during Obama were not swing voters and the women’s protests on January 21st were not swing voters.
So I think it is seen as the political opposition getting organized, but they are going to be in the opposition anyway.
We don’t really have strikes, those are a bit more effective. So is people who’d normally stay home going out to vote. But protests don’t seem to do much.
…then debate away. We are in Great Debates after all. Why do you disagree? If the hundreds of thousands of phone calls to Senate GOP offices were to completely stop today: what do you think would happen with repeal and replace? Do you think that stopping the fight against repeal and replace is the best strategy to stopping repeal and replace?
Is silently protesting on one knee an “aggressive way to break through some one’s social spam filter?” Is not standing for the national anthem a “constant spamming of unwanted viewpoints?”
Just wanting to set a benchmark here.
I disagree that “protesting” is equivalent or even an analog " to “spamming.” Spamming has a clearly defined definition: advertising is not spamming. Standing on a soapbox delivering a message is not spamming. And protesting is not spamming either.
Of course most protests don’t accomplish anything. They only accomplish something when, after people start considering the issue, start to think to themselves that maybe the protesters have a point. And that rarely happens, because if it was that easy to change people’s minds they’d have already changed them.
If protests never work, then why is the conservative media in such a lather about the rising tide of protests and activists that will ruin the lives of anyone who stands up against them?
Protests really work when most people are actually behind the protesters, and it’s a small powerful minority against them. Authoritarian countries work because although most people hate the regime, they have to cooperate with it or get their ass kicked. Everyone cooperating is how the authoritarian leaders stay in power. Mass demonstrations break that power, which is why authoritarian countries respond to protests with machine guns and tanks.
But we don’t have an authoritarian country. If a solid majority of people wanted something, they don’t have to protest for it, they can just vote for it. But when a social problem seemingly can never be solved by political means, then protests are inevitable.
So take income inequality. It’s been said so many times that the 1% have benefited disproportionately from the economic growth of the past 35 years that it’s become a cliche. But it really is true that wages have been completely flat for 35 years for 95% of the country. The top 5% have seen some pretty good growth, the top 1% have seen very good growth, and the top 0.01% have seen phenomenal, unprecedented growth.
And this is why things like the Obamacare repeal keep happening, even though Obamacare repeal turns out to be incredibly unpopular. You know who wants it? The 0.01%, because they want a tax cut.
I disagree because I see other forces at work,that seem to have a greater effect on the failure to replace Obamacare than protesting (total Republican incompetence, mainly.). phone call to GOP offices or elected representatives don’t seem to me to be protests. That’s the mainstream political process. Contacting one’s parties and elected officials to express your will is your duty as a citizen. Receiving and reacting to it is their duty as elected officials.
I don’t think so. Others may disagree. Taking a knee is still respectful. Colin Kapernick put his money where his knee was. I think it’s gone beyond that, and now it’s simply a virtue signifier.
Almost all the spam I receive is an ad of some form. You may wish to rethink this.
[/quote]
Standing on a soapbox delivering a message is not spamming. And protesting is not spamming either.
[/quote]
In this country, I think it is as there are already valid channels that give voice to viewpoints, there is no need for standing on a soapbox, or marching with signs.
The very act of protesting is something of an assertion that one lacks conventional political power. This was ultimately effective in the civil rights era, because it highlighted the structural racism that legally and socially prevented African-Americans from participating in the political process. Protest had a moral force beyond politics.
At the other end of the spectrum, if one has the ability to participate politically, and the basis of one’s protest is simply that one’s efforts were not successful, then the case for taking to the streets seems much weaker.
Ultimately, though, protests can evolve into rallies and become a vehicle for organizing. The Tea Party went this way, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see the Resistance do the same thing.
Do you think, 40 years from now, that there will be a Facebook post or spam email that you read that will have the same historical significance as the “I Have a Dream” speech?
Yes–but we’re a civilization of monkeys. What we see, we’re a lot likelier to do.
The marchers aren’t swing voters, but they show swing voters that there’s a strong view out there, and that it’s a view that should be taken seriously given how many people hold it (remember: monkeys). Swing voters don’t march, but the have their opinions influenced by marchers, at least in theory. They’re not the marchers; they’re the audience.
At least, they’re one audience. Another audience is the marchers themselves: by seeings a large group of people who hold the same views, marchers may be energized and re-moralized. They may think that things aren’t quite so hopeless, that after the march it’s worth their time to go do the dull unsexy drudgery of working toward justice.
I propose that how you’re responding to BLM and similar protests today is a pretty good indicator of how you would have responded to SNCC a half-century ago.
This is an interesting question, but I’m not sure how relevant it is. The “I Have a Dream Speech” is probably the single most famous bit of sustained oratory from American history (the only real contender is the Gettysburg Address, and I’d be real surprised if GA were better known), and also probably among the top five best known bits of sustained oratory in human history. Sui generis.
Since surprisingly early in the 20th century writers have been proposing that modern communications meant that people wouldn’t have to leave their homes; they could communicate long distance and not waste all that valuable time simply moving their bodies around.
We’re closer to that world than ever and yet not leaving the house recedes almost as fast. Human are social animals. They want - and most of them need - the presence of other human animals. Going out and mixing with like-minded people is what gives humans pleasure.
This is not merely “a vital catalyst for social progress.” It’s the most basic part of being a social animal. It will never go away. My prediction is that it will grow ever stronger.
Well lets look at the protests against circus animals.
For years people protested at the circus but it got nowhere but then, they began running and getting into office which lead to votes and laws prohibiting circus animals and now, guess what? Ringling Brothers dropped elephants.
No, it’s not just spam or wanking, and yes, we still need protests. Basically, social media and the internet are just another tool that enables protest, not something that supplants it. Think of the Arab Spring…social media was what enabled the mass protests.
It’s just as vital as it ever was. Doesn’t mean that every protest is the same and all have the same weight and necessity, but that we need the continued ability to assemble and protest? I think don’t think that this has changed or that the technology has rendered any of it moot, nor do I think it ever will, though I can see a time when our lives are even more entangled with the cyber world and that tool gets used even more than today.
