2010-2020 saw more mass protests around the world than at any other point in human history, but the societal changes that resulted were often the opposite of what protesters demanded. Author Vincent Bevins explains why.
I guess that depends on who ‘we’ means? The September climate protests were pretty big globally, with 50 countries participating.
As someone who has been to protests in the past for various topics, my experience is that the media isn’t interested in reporting on them unless they get dramatic eye-catching footage. Which unfortunately usually means just the ones that have a physical fight break out make the front page anywhere.
Then I have to disagree. They’ve been most effective on smaller jurisdiction governments, but there have been a good amount of significant protests the past few years. The Carnegie endowment tracker has a pretty good list.
Physical protests have limitations though like transport to a central point. I suspect the support is greater than attendees.
and we don’t need new strategies, in direct opposition to the headline?
No. In direct support of the article body, I agree we need to modify mass protest tactics to create more chaos. Chaos and violence are not necessarily the same thing. It is possible to escalate to something before violence, and escalation from 0 to 100 may not be necessary at all.
The more innocent people who are killed, the more the survivors understandably want their pound of flesh. It fuels the cycle of abuse and atrocities, and we have thousands of years of evidence that murder has had limited effectiveness at creating a better world too.
Climate Action, housing crisis, massive debts, pollution, minimum wage increases, racism, police brutality, rich people not getting punished, politicians not keeping their word, corruption, …
Removed by mod
I guess that depends on who ‘we’ means? The September climate protests were pretty big globally, with 50 countries participating.
As someone who has been to protests in the past for various topics, my experience is that the media isn’t interested in reporting on them unless they get dramatic eye-catching footage. Which unfortunately usually means just the ones that have a physical fight break out make the front page anywhere.
Removed by mod
Then I have to disagree. They’ve been most effective on smaller jurisdiction governments, but there have been a good amount of significant protests the past few years. The Carnegie endowment tracker has a pretty good list.
Physical protests have limitations though like transport to a central point. I suspect the support is greater than attendees.
Removed by mod
No. In direct support of the article body, I agree we need to modify mass protest tactics to create more chaos. Chaos and violence are not necessarily the same thing. It is possible to escalate to something before violence, and escalation from 0 to 100 may not be necessary at all.
The more innocent people who are killed, the more the survivors understandably want their pound of flesh. It fuels the cycle of abuse and atrocities, and we have thousands of years of evidence that murder has had limited effectiveness at creating a better world too.
What is there to protest?
Climate Action, housing crisis, massive debts, pollution, minimum wage increases, racism, police brutality, rich people not getting punished, politicians not keeping their word, corruption, …
All of those are meaningless to me. I guess it makes sense that I’m not taking to the streets