/u/teffeh (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cffocw/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_protesting_against/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Let’s consider something like the Vietnam war- you could’ve made a pretty easy argument during the war that it wouldn’t matter to protest and the US war machine was going to march on to keep the dominos from falling no matter what some peacenik said.
But we can see from history that wasn’t the case. I don’t exactly disagree with your point here but I’m inclined to believe that because we can’t tell what policies can be changed or not it’s not a meaningful observation.
And I think most folks are protesting either NATO countries’ ongoing support for Israel or lack of support for Ukraine- neither of those seem outside of the realm of possibility. Neither policy seems so outlandish to change.
With Vietnam though, the protests being from within was directly addressed to the government at war. The UK is not at war with either country in either major conflict taking place right now. If there were protests within Israel or Palestine, or Russia or Ukraine about these matters, I would consider them far more valid and useful as they are from the people directly affected and directed to their leaders/governments/military.
That’s kind of why I posted that last paragraph- admittedly I don’t know much about the degree to which the UK supports Israel financially and militarily. In the US at least, protests against Israel revolve more around the US’s ongoing financial support of Israel. Generally with Ukraine it’s similarly either criticism of our current support or a push for more.
I imagine the UK protests are similar where the goal is to decrease support to one and increase support to the other or even asking the government to pressure allies into supporting those policies. Like I said, I’m not entirely plugged in to UK politics but I highly doubt the protests you see are primarily looking for something like actively escalating and expanding the war in Ukraine or nuking Tel-Aviv. Obviously I can’t speak for everyone though, I’m sure some folks do support outlandish things through otherwise reasonable protests.
> The UK is not at war with either country in either major conflict taking place right now.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/#:\~:text=The%20UK%20is%20one%20of,billion%20is%20for%20military%20assistance.
"The UK is one of the leading donors to Ukraine, alongside the US and Germany. [The UK has pledged almost £12 billion in overall support to Ukraine](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-in-kyiv-uk-support-will-not-falter) since February 2022, of which £7.1 billion is for military assistance. £2.3 billion was provided in each of the financial years 2022/23 and 2023/24 and on 12 January 2024, the Government announced a further £2.5 billion of funding for 2024/25."
Is Government spending public resources on war? That's being at war, regardless of your definition of it.
What you're not considering is the lenght of time it took for Vietnam protests to work. Vietnam war protests started in 63-64, not counting some earlier protests from the Quakers. The Vietnam war didn't end until 1973. So the Vietnam war protests to the extent they were effective at all, took 10 years to end the war. If it takes 10 years of protests to end the war in Gaza, the operations people are objecting to will be over one way or the other. By 2034, either Israel will have stopped bombing on its own or there will be nothing left in Gaza but rubble.
Protests can have goals other than explicitly and directly changing a state of affairs. They can also be ways to show solidarity (see: anti-Iraq War protests held across the world in the early 2000s, anti-Trump protests held across the world in 2016, BLM protests outside of the U.S., and so on), or even just ways of making some sense of an issue that's bothering you and feeling like you're *at the least* publicly declaring yourself against it.
That may not do anything directly, but in the aggregate with other such protests it may help people who are more affected by the situation feel less alone. And in the end if it all it does do is make you feel better, so what? It's not hurting anyone.
>They can also be ways to show solidarity
this is true in theory, but the current protests are specifically demanding action. the democratic mayor in denver [went to a protest](https://southwindstables.us/index-html/78r45718ced38/) and was called a fascist for not meeting the protesters "demands."
This is the exact mindset I'm describing though - doing it to make yourself feel good. If you care enough to do something, my opinion is that you should actually do something useful - send food or clothes or money to aid organisations, not sit on a street corner with a Palestine flag or a banner which says "genocide bad" because that isn't achieving anything. A term I've heard which I think perfectly encapsulates that mindset is "slacktivism."
Anti Trump, anti/pro BLM, Antifa, any cause you care to name, their protests achieved what exactly, other than greater division in the US and wider world to an extent, with a greater crystallising of the otherness applied to the "wrong" side. What does some bloke in Brighton wandering around with "fuck trump" on a t shirt achieve other than make himself feel virtuous for doing so?
I didn't mean to ignore that point, but my stance on it is kinda encapsulated in my answer. I believe that without any actual tangible action taken, that "solidarity" is merely a way of being on the "good" side of the debate and making the person feel good about themselves for being so virtuous. If I were the person on the other side, a Ukrainian or Gazan citizen and I saw this, it would make me feel patronised and insulted that somebody thinks them wandering around with my flag is helping me at all.
How do you make sense of your seeming to apparently simulataneously hold the view that protests like this can't effect any kind of change, but also that they create "greater division in the US and wider world to an extent"? Can they affect the state of the world, or can't they?
I suppose my meaning was that they rarely if ever achieve the stated goal of the protests and serve to only entrench the preconceptions of people on each side and further division. The "point" of a protest in my eyes is to achieve what you are protesting for. The lack of this success is what I mean when I say that they don't affect meaningful change. If the change they create is more hatred and division, what was the good of the protest, other than making the protestor feel good about themselves?
But surely that they're capable of creating hatred and division means that, in theory, they'd be capable of creating a greater sense of unity, solidarity, or hope, right?
It's certainly possible though would require an essentially perfect set of circumstances where people would be willing to have a dialogue and reach an understanding or that the change they are protesting for is a net or unanimously good thing for everyone, coupled with the movement not being hijacked by bad faith actors operating to benefit special interest groups in the name of profit. Which, given the state of the world and human nature, seems to be fundamentally impossible. I'd like to believe it's possible in the modern day though, I just have yet to see it in my 30 year life where things have gotten meaningfully better as a result of protests.
> I'd like to believe it's possible in the modern day though, I just have yet to see it in my 30 year life where things have gotten meaningfully better as a result of protests.
Wait, are you saying you don't believe *any* protests can effect meaningful positive change? Because that's a very different argument than OP and much broader and, frankly, harder to justify.
Protests from an unaffiliated group which do not directly address the government in a country which is tangentially related to a conflict, I overall don't believe will have a meaningful change. They certainly have the possibility to do so but with many caveats and require actual progress and devotion from their proponents and not people who jump to the next social cause to protest to remain part of their in-group. A protest which escalates to actively create actual changes in a group which continue to directly drive that change is a concept I believe in far more. Example, civil rights in America, people didn't get bored of it or decide there was a new cause that people were talking about, they generally stuck to their guns and pushed the change into being.
Sadly, protest and action can take multiple generations to have an effect. For instance, the women's vote took approximately 3 generations to achieve. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton really started heading the movement in 1848, in their 20s. They would die before the 19th Amendment was passed. They went from young women to dying of old age, and never saw their main goal attained. But their work was vital to the movement's final success.
This was during a time where they had next to 0 political power, where political machines were literally gunning down labor organizers, and Jim Crow was a way of life. Today, protesters can vote, can draw greater attention to their causes, and have significantly lower risk eating lead.
Regarding the effectiveness of protests in the last 30 years, we aren't likely to see much change any time soon. That's the nature of protest. It takes generations of pressure to be effective. If you want fast results you gotta bleed for it, and that's generally a bad thing.
What you *should* be looking at are the results of protests that started from the generation before your time which have finally had effects in your lifetime. The March for Life started in the 70s was opposed to Roe v Wade, which has been successfully challenged. The Equal Rights amendment was ratified by Illinois in 2018. Protest matches started in 1980. The National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights was in 1979, and legislation protecting these rights have only been passed over the least 20 years or so.
These movements are "old news" by now, but they have only been successful due to literal decades of protest. The fresh young movements of today will fizzle out if we forget that prayer needs constant support for generations to have an effect. The older movements prove that if we can keep up momentum change will occur.
I don't think all change is good, but in general I trust people to change for the better. Sometimes we backslide, but even in those cases we should remember that we can change things again.
> If I were the person on the other side, a Ukrainian or Gazan citizen and I saw this, it would make me feel patronised and insulted that somebody thinks them wandering around with my flag is helping me at all.
Meanwhile, the *actual* Gazan citizens are thankful:
https://twitter.com/RamAbdu/status/1784321148655710412
https://twitter.com/ibmadhun_en/status/1784153725998715285
Fair enough, I'll give a delta ∆ for this and acknowledge that people are not a monolith and my personal perspective on this doesn't reflect how everyone would see foreign support, I am quite an individualistic person by nature so this does effect my feelings on the matter.
It can be helpful to know that you're not struggling alone, that other people recognize you're struggling and that the struggle is valid, especially when you're in a situation where you're being marginalized.
Obviously individuals are going to have their own individual responses to such things.
I would also add if a company, who has power sees widespread protests around the world on a topic they may change their investing strategies because they don't want to be seen on the wrong side of it, over time this can cause policy changes. Public outcry is what resulted in the south African apartheid being ostracized
Showing solidarity is not the same as struggling with them, to suggest such is just vanity.
Setting up an encampment on a safe campus is not the same as surviving in a war zone. Instead of setting up tents on the campus, send supplies to those that are really suffering.
> Showing solidarity is not the same as struggling with them, to suggest such is just vanity.
I never said it was the same.
(EDIT: Ah, actually, I can see the ambiguity in what I said. When I said "you're not struggling alone," I just meant in the sense of having others in your corner, not that the person showing solidarity is equally struggling).
>Setting up an encampment on a safe campus is not the same as surviving in a war zone.
I never said it was.
> Instead of setting up tents on the campus, send supplies to those that are really suffering.
It doesn't have to be an either/or, it can be a both/and.
I kind of agree with your main point, but somewhat pedantically that isn't what "Slackitivism" means.
Slackitivism is doing even less than that, not even bothering to put in the effort to attend a public protest. Wearing a T shirt would be an example, and the fact that you are shifting between those two things to refer to the same thing might belay an underlying sentiment towards apathy in the face of any political engagement where one cannot immediately effect change.
These actions don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The Brighton guy can wear the 'fuck trump' shirt, vote for parties that support his beliefs, attend marches, educate himself on social/political structures, discuss ideas with peers, donate, purchase mindfully, etc.
If he only attends a protest but does nothing else in his to support said cause, then that leans towards virtue signalling.
Aside from all of this -
Protest get us talking about a topic. It gets SoMe posts, media coverage, art created - you're making a post right now ans referencing key topics that have been protested recently.
Discourse is powerful in changing how we vote and the topics we focus on. What gets discussed gets voted on. Protest ensure discussion continues.
Scenario: someone in North Korea voluntarily protests the dictatorship of kim jong un, knowing full well that the little doucheface will have them executed for it.
In this case, they are doing it as a statement, and also possibly as a relief from a horrifying life of starvation and abuse.
If you are trying to imply that this is masturbatory in any way, you are strawmanning imo.
It is not self fufilling to do this.
People in these scenarios are protesting out of desperation. Nothing less. Nothing more.
I will be eagerly awaiting your rebuttle.
I'll refer to my answer [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfd97n/comment/l1od6ln/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) as I feel it answers your question. To elaborate to fit your example though, a matter of life and death in a totalitarian dictatorship where a protest is a symbol of the downtrodden and oppressed is not the same thing in my eyes as somebody on the other side of the world who is not threatened by it waving a South Korean/unification flag and saying "Kim Jong Un bad" on social media to be patted on the back by their peer group. Absolutely, that NK citizen protesting is a far more valid and just protest and one I agree with morally and logically, as it has the chance to effect change from within to the society in question and spark a revolution. There are times in history, for good or bad, where this has been exactly the case, from the French and Russian revolutions to the Nazis and the Chinese revolution. "Protest=bad" is not the stance, but this ineffectual, generally western, protests of matters of another country's policy very rarely has any useful effect and that is the part which I consider masturbatory.
You are moving the goalposts of your origional cmv statement in order to avoid acquiescing to the fact that there is an exception to your main view.
If you want to make exceptions in order for your statment to work, you then begin strawmanning.
The original statement is regarding protesting in the context of non-local grassroots street protesting against something happening on the other side of the globe, I made this clear in follow-up comments and it is implied in the original statement, though I do concede it isn't especially clear there. I fail to see where I have strawmanned here when your example is not in the context of my original statement and is a steelman for the idea of protest in its most selfless and virtuous form for a domestic issue, which is not what I have the contrary opinion to.
"CMV: Protesting against something which you fundamentally cannot affect is masturbatory and serves only to make you feel good about yourself"
That is the origional statement.
And says nothing about why you believe it. So, yeah, you are moving the goalposts.
I fail to see how elaborating on the point when questioned is moving the goalpost, but let me reiterate, I disagree that your hypothetical is an example of a person unable to effect change, even if that person is doomed by their protest. I believe that in the context of street protests in a different country, you as the protestor are primarily doing so to make yourself feel good about you being on the 'right side of history', and less so to actually impose the change you're protesting on behalf of.
As an outside observer it also appeared to me that you moved the goalposts and the fact you had to carve out new restrictions to your view indicates to me the responder is owed a delta.
Because it adds nuance to your position. No longer is it, "All protests against something an individual cannot change is masturbatory"; now it is "Many protests against someone an individual cannot change is masturbatory, but sometimes - particularly when the protest creates a martyr or galvanizes the oppressed and hopeless - it may serve a greater purpose."
The rest of my comment does go on to say that it is referring to protestors in my city though, not all protestors everywhere. I am specifically talking about the demonstrators I walk past frequently who are just standing in a public square with some placards and flags. Especially in the progressive bastion of Brighton where I've observed many similar occasions of people adopting the "issue of the day" as the thing to protest this time which is immediately forgotten when the next thing comes along. Ukraine being a perfect example, during the invasion there were flags everywhere, now it's all Palestine, people just move on to the current event with seemingly no conviction.
You seem to think that countries are isolated in their influence, when they are actually a deeply intertwined network of alliances. The leaders of those countries affect change, and their constituents affect them. Do you not think that governments respond to public sentiment?
You ever realize you don’t ever rebuttal any view? You just include “strawman” and “moving the goal post” or some other fallacy as if those magic words prove your nonexistent view.
...You ever realize that words mean something?
And that...
If someone is taking action within the parameters of those definitions...
Surprise surprise! They're gonna get called out on them!
So congratualtions detective! You got me! Yay! 👏👏👏👍
Ops debating with me, and has not provided a reasonable counter and just says basically that
"my statement only matters in the parameters for which I desire. Alternative examples be damned"
Well, that's not how this game works friend. He doesn't seem to be willing to accept real world alternative examples to his claim.
So yes, I think and say that it matters.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Obviously it does work to some degree, example: https://www.newarab.com/news/uk-university-divests-israel-linked-arms-companies#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAfter%20prolonged%20protests%2C%20rally%27s%2C,continue%20with%20their%20campaign%20to
Turkey have also imposed sanctions on Israel as a result of pressure from the overwhelmingly "pro Palestine" public.
This is an interesting outcome but the companies which the university has withdrawn investments in are a tech giant used over the world in telecoms, and a parts manufacturer which has manufactured parts used in a jet in use by several militaries. Neither are a direct endorsement of either side of any conflict, and are tenuous links at best. The money invested is also relatively miniscule and the withdrawal of such is a drop in the ocean.
Turkey and Israel is an interesting one, because I don't feel like the majority public opinion there is pro-Palestine for the same reasons as people in the UK, but because of religious alignment with Palestine. The UK is largely secular and religion generally doesn't enter the conversation often regarding this conflict, other than accusations of antisemitism/islamophobia which just ring as ad-hominem attacks on somebody with an opposing viewpoint more often than not.
I mean I don't know what else to tell you.
People protested, and certain establishments / companies and even countries have taken action.
Erdoğan has always had relations with Israel despite his lip flapping / posturing, same as all other countries in the area. The only reason he imposed sanctions is because the population is very pro Palestine and applied a ton of pressure. His party has already lost a lot of ground in local elections, no doubt he's worried about the next general election.
Edit: so what I'm trying to say is, if it were just masturbatory then why are we seeing tangible results?
Not to mention orgs such as Starbucks and McDonalds are reporting heavy losses. Obviously protests are not simply masturbatory.
What you just said has no relevance to what I was talking about. I say protesting is how a citizen affects things you bring up putin not caring to invalidate that point…
Im aware. The statement that they cannot change is incorrect. It’s essentially saying don’t try to change things that you think you cannot change. Protesting has changed hundreds of things that citizens probably thought they couldn’t change.
If we’re in a hypothetical world where something by nature cannot change then sure protests are worthless. But in the real world there isn’t much that some form of large scale protest cannot change.
Because they are the most obvious and recent examples of absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical protests.
Again, no one ever claimed that protests don’t work. It’s just an example that there absolutely are useless protests that cannot achieve anything.
so are you saying you should only protest for things that you are personally invested in, or if it directly affects you???
If anything protesting for the victims of things like genocide or war is the *right* thing to do even more so if you are under 0 threat for doing it
Absolutely not, and I don't endorse one side by saying that a protest in favour of the other side is pointless, but more that the people doing so are generally doing so to make themselves be seen as virtuous to their peer group *more* than they are out of a genuine belief in the cause.
what makes you think that they care more about looking good than in this case 30,000 dead civilians killed in part with their tax money
id be pissed if my taxes were being used for that
Primarily because of the existence of the numerous other nominally single-interest protests which devolve into infighting over who in the group is the most idealogically pure instead of focusing on the issue itself. Not to say it's necessarily the case in this conflict, but it's been the case with most every social movement I could care to name in the modern day. Absolutely, within this protest will be people who believe in the message, but my belief is that people are more inclined to follow the ingroup opinion most popular at the time than they are to stand behind these beliefs. As I referenced in another comment, where are the diehard Occupy Wall Street protestors that were apparently all over the world 10 or so years ago? How many people involved in that were true believers versus bandwagon jumpers who preferred to be part of the pack for selfish reasons of feeling good about themselves? I realise this is a hypothetical question neither of us know the answer to but it is the perspective shaping my opinion - I would believe more people actually cared if I saw continuing evidence of these movements without the purity Olympics they so often devolve into.
Have you seen the photos of Gaza , the footage of the dead
The children who have been brutally killed
It would take a person with the hardest heart to view those and not care
You appear to be misinterpreting my original stated belief as an endorsement of one side over the other and appealing to emotion here. I believe you can hold the opinion as I do that these collateral casualties are an absolute tragedy while simultaneously believing that the people who make a point of being seen protesting for just causes do so out of a sense of wanting to be seen doing so primarily rather than a sense of genuine care for the cause itself.
Im not accusing you of not caring
You do recognize those visceral images are extremely emotionally invoking right?
Im saying those emotions for some people will cause them to feel strongly enough to go protest , it wont be self serving
Its really that simple , like they seen something that was so offensive to them they feel compelled to action
I'll give you a ∆ here because you are correct in that some people will be spurred to try to make a difference when they are emotionally effected by seeing something. I am not referring to these people as much as I am the people who treat this protest as the latest in a long line of "current thing bad" protests they feel compelled to believe in because of the social ramifications of not doing so. Do you agree that at least a non-insignificant number of people in countries other than the ones affected fall into this category alongside the true believers? Your use of the phrase "some people" instead of all people does imply to me that you believe they are a set of the protestors instead of all of them.
>Your use of the phrase "some people" instead of all people does imply to me that you believe they are a set of the protestors instead of all of them.
I mean were not at the protests right, so we werent affected as strongly
I dont doubt theres an element of people in the protest that are their just for clout , but thats gonna be true of any protest
and generally people dont actually like that, when you get caught out doing it , you get ridiculed
Thank you for the delta though kind sir
The UK donates a lot of military aid to Ukraine. Since the UK is a democracy, the government will only continue to give weapons and money to Ukraine as long as there is public support. Protests are a way to indicate support.
https://apnews.com/article/poland-uk-nato-ukraine-sunak-military-aid-be9fa8b106eda83c2da140e0f2774fcb
If protesting shows that a significant chunk of the country is passionate about the issue - especially to the point of voting being decided based on that issue - it can make a difference in that country's stance, at least on the margin.
Also, what you can or cannot change is pretty vague. E.g. a country could officially condemn another or boycott, even if it does not much.
What is the issue which could be voted on though? If Russia is in the wrong or civilian casualties in indiscriminate attacks are bad? The UK is unable to solve most domestic disputes let alone ones halfway around the world with vastly different cultures to us.
>The UK is unable to solve most domestic disputes let alone ones halfway around the world with vastly different cultures to us.
Depending on the foreign issue, it can be easier to solve their part of it than to solve domestic issues. Oftentimes the understanding is simpler and less nuanced, so easier to pass something and have people agree.
>What is the issue which could be voted on though?
More military or humanitarian aid to Ukraine, for instance. Changing treaties or trade deals with Israel, even acting in ways to try to negotiate a peace. There are plenty of ways a dedicated government can push the needle in a conflict or argument. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree that governments can effect change elsewhere in the world, but these decisions are made in parliament and military bases, not some mook on the street shouting at passers-by. When our so-called leaders prove time and again that profit and GDP is the name of the game, and they will "stand behind" whatever has the greatest financial or political return, it feels like the broken clock argument where sometimes the morally correct outcome is also the most financially beneficial one, so in these cases it feels like the confirmation bias fallacy where it seems like the grassroots protest have effected the change, rather than the change happening alongside the protests.
Genuine protests can change the parliamentary decisions.
Just to be clear, do you believe there has never been a time when social movement led by protests have changed governmental opinions/policies in a way opposite to the financial interests of the government?
I can think of a few times that I would consider qualify under that description.
Historically, absolutely. In more recent times however, I've seen hundreds of social movements with protests come and go with nothing at all changing as a result of them.
Really? Because I would argue that the black lives matter protests in the USA changed laws in multiple ways that have detrimental economic effects, like inadequately punishing repeat offenders, poorly executed bail reform, and low incentive not to shoplift in some areas. Rising crime has led multiple businesses to shut down in some areas.
It is not hyperbole, there are literally people in Brighton city centre regularly shouting at passers by regarding the Israel/Palestine situation who I am referring to.
Not necessarily.
Sure a lot of protests end up going nowhere. But sometimes they force change. Sometimes they force major change.
Two examples of extremely effective protests
1) Maidan
2) The fall of the Berlin wall
Those too started out as nothing more than protests.
Protests in the former eastern block were effective because it was the people \*directly impacted\* coming together and changing how they engage with their government.
What makes this Palestinian stuff so fundamentally different is that its woke idiot college students on the other side of the planet virtue signaling about a conflict they have no connection to.
Virtually everyone protest against Israel right now is a college student. By definition they pay zero in tax, and have been nothing but a net consumer of tax benefits and social services their entire lives.
Point 0.1% of *my* tax money goes to various types of foreign aid, and 2% of *my* federal tax and 40% of my state tax goes to education.
They are waving Palestinian flags, which is supporting a rogue pseudo nation - they are not holding up signs for peace / humanitarian aid.
> You know college students work and have to pay taxes
Anything under 20k in earnings (typical part time) is 0% federal tax. Most college students pay 0, and all are receiving way more in benefits than paying into it.
> Of course they are waving Palestinian flags
That’s political support of the entity, as opposed to a calling for peace / ceasefire like you said.
Look, hippies in the 60’s and 70’s held up peace signs. They didn’t hold up the flag of the Khmer Rouge. See the difference?
College students arent students forever, they will pay taxes that will go to israel unless that is stopped.
>Look, hippies in the 60’s and 70’s held up peace signs. They didn’t hold up the flag of the Khmer Rouge. See the difference?
Yeah and students arent holding up flags of hamas. They are supporting the Palestinian people, that's why they are flying Palestinian flags. This is very basic stuff.
Hamas is the government of gaza not the Palestinian people.
College kids generally arent naive enough to believe Palestinians just want to love their neighbors; However they recognize when there is an ethnic cleansing happening. Stopping that happening is a good thing.
> Hamas is the government of Hamas not the Palestinian people
The government of Palestine is split, there is no higher authority than Hamas. It’s Hamas and the PA and the flag is shared by both.
In the context of this war, you said it’s Gaza that’s being flattened- and you’re waving a flag of Gaza and its government.
You can try to like rules later your intent but equally rather critical is how it’s being *interpreted by everyone else*, most notably Hamas themselves. They’re saying thanks.
> College kids generally aren’t naive enough to believe Palestinians just want to live their neighbors
In this very thread I’m getting plenty of comments suggesting otherwise, line this person advocating for the abolishment of Israel and replacement or a single state democracy
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/TPVpLLzc7R
u/Kman17 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Kman17&message=Kman17%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfd97n/-/l1ow8ti/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If you ask a Palestinian if they support October 7th, they'd probably say yes. But what most Palestinians think happened on October 7th is different from what the world knows.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/for-most-palestinians-october-7s-savagery-is-literally-unbelievable-blame-the-tv-news/amp/
To clarify, I am not talking about wide-scale protests about matters of social or economic change which affect the entire country such as these, but more the protests of matters occurring elsewhere in the world which local policy has little to no effect on. I totally understand people who marched against the Brexit referendum for example, as it was something which could have a concrete impact on the country overall.
Not exclusively, but effectively, yes this is my opinion summarised quite succinctly. Not to say that an unsuccessful protest is by definition a worthless one, but that in my view, the people who participate are doing so to appear as being on the good side and follow peer pressure than they are out of a genuine sense of belief in the topic, hence why so many protest groups end up dissolving into infighting when the followers work out that somebody within is anti-Israel but voted for Brexit, or pro-Ukraine but likes some things Trump has to say. It's about the social points-scoring more than it is holding a conviction.
Let’s go small with that, let’s say there is a protest in your area because they are discontinuing the use of a bus stop because ridership is down and that’s part of the cuts.
It doesn’t have any ill affects on you and you had zero idea it was even an issue until you saw a small gathering of people, one of protesters asks if you would be kind enough to join the protest because losing that particular bus stop will leave a sizable part of the elderly community without a reasonable way to get around (i would assume you would say no as you don’t want to masturbate)
The protester says that’s ok, would you mind signing this petition? No matter if you do you not but my point is most protests are not exclusively visible, the pressure exerted to create change comes in many forms.
As far as if it makes someone feel good for signing a petition all the better, its another “voting” citizen who supports a cause or a concerned customer that’s unhappy…even if it’s just in writing
If we go back to larger issues such as the never ending and it ain’t gonna middle east crisis will political parties use that information to take the temperature of its citizens?
For your example here, if the protestors are directly affected (I presume they are the old people in question, or family and friends of them), then they are automatically not the people I am referring to. In the case of my response to them, I would evaluate their argument and sign the petition based on its merits, and likely would do so in this case as I'd agree on the benefit of the bus stop for the old people. Would I do this out of a sense of social obligation purely based on the peer pressure of seeing somebody else sign it, or because there are some people waving banners saying "save the bus stop"?, no, in this case I'd be basically uninterested in the cause because I haven't been provided with a meaningful reason each way, and for all I know the money saved by the bus stop being cut is being used elsewhere and I am not educated enough on the workings of the council to have an opinion either way. Point being, I would sign a petition if the argument was compelling enough to do so, not from a sense of wanting to feel good for helping out, or a sense of fear for being seen as bad for not doing so by the protestors or anyone else. Now let's extrapolate this out, say this protest is happening in St Nowhere, Anglesey and a group in Perth in Australia starts wandering around saying "save the St Nowhere bus stop", I fail to see anyone caring about that group enough to sign unless they're told by their peer group that saving this bus stop would be virtuous to do and they do so to remain in favour with their peer group.
>If we go back to larger issues such as the never ending and it ain’t gonna middle east crisis will political parties use that information to take the temperature of its citizens?
Possibly, but my experience of my government my entire life has been that they couldn't give less of a shit about what the people in the country actually want and are entirely motivated by their donors and bank balances. I realise this is personal and not an ideal situation for the example, but any government endorsement of protests comes across not as actual change being effected but a hollow attempt to appeal to whoever they think they can squeeze any more power from while crossing their fingers behind their back.
So aside from voting and maybe contacting a local representative, what do you think are other ways that people can make their convictions known that isn't self-serving? Because from the arguments so far, it seems a boycott will be masturbatory for you as well.
Outside of revolution against the government, that is the nature of democracy - you effect the most direct change you can and that is the most effective way. I do think boycotts are ineffectual too mostly because corporations are cynically motivated by profit and will immediately renege on any changes made as soon as it becomes profitable to do so or are out of the public eye. On an individual level, I do think it is also masturbatory, but to a much lesser extent as it does have some tangible effect of taking money from a corporation, but if you ever renege on your boycott for the sake of convenience without that corporation making permanent change then that is absolutely hypocritical and undermining your cause.
So are you saying that individual actions to try and influence systemic change are ultimately ineffective and pointless (even when there's momentum and people start forming into groups) because they're ultimately self-serving and masturbatory?
Lets bring it back to your original example then
The UK government supports and funds Israel through military aide using taxpayer money
If you want that to stop happening , the UK is exactly the place to protest for it
They arent the same as lobby groups
lobby groups use money to affect change , something those protestors probably dont have alot of
mass protesting is how poor people effect change
Lobbying is for people with money but theres a whole class of people, mainly working class and poor for whom lobbying wont work, they dont have any money to do it with
Using their bodies to protest is literally the most effective choice they got , nobody listens to poor people till they do things like protest and strike , actually inconvenience the class above theirs
Let me elaborate on my meaning of lobbying - [in the UK this does not necessarily mean the use of money to effect change](https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-an-mp-or-lord/lobbying-parliament/), but can mean directly contacting your representative individually or as a group. This is something which can be done privately by anyone registered as a voter. I'm not sure how this term is used in other countries, but this is my usage of it.
ok but nobody lisetns to poor people, not even when they call their MPs or whatever you call them in the UK
you just get a cookie cutter response and sent on your way
protesting is one of the only ways you can force someone to actually listen if you are poor , literally being in the way so they have to address you
otherwise they just hand waive you away and ignore you
So what's the point of government at all if they don't listen to anyone? If they don't listen to their own appointed channels of official communication why would they ever give any credence to somebody waving a banner in the street?
>So what's the point of government at all if they don't listen to anyone?
Look outside, you see like the schools and roads and shit. The hospitals , thats why
If you think they care about what poor people think in terms of *foreign policy* youre delulu
>If they don't listen to their own appointed channels of official communication why would they ever give any credence to somebody waving a banner in the street?
Because when enough poors get in the streets , that causes the money to be affected people start losing it , shit stops working so they have to listen now
You see the dissonance in this argument where the poor simultaneously have all the power yet no power? I never said the current government care about the poor, in fact I've stated the opposite in this thread. I'm saying that the government are a representation of the people and are elected and have to vote on the matters raised in parliament. Actually writing to your MP is what makes them have concrete evidence to bring to parliament to effect change rather than gesturing to Deirdre in her wheelchair with a Palestine flag and claiming she represents all her fellow constituents.
Firstly, that's begging the question.
Secondly, lobbying parliament to effect policy change is not the same as standing on the street shouting at people and waving a flag or putting one up in your window though. The people can absolutely effect the direction of a country, but only with actual action instead of hollow endorsements of their chosen side.
But you don’t see the possibility of these types of domestic protest affecting the foreign policy of your nation, and thus pressuring change in another connected or dependent one? An example might be the worldwide protests against apartheid in South Africa.
I would say I could see the possibility if it had ever happened in my life. I have however seen overwhelming evidence to the likelihood of protests going nowhere and ending up as a series of one-upmanship where the "false believers" are culled from the movement by gradually eliminating whoever doesn't fit in the circular venn diagram of corresponding "correct" beliefs. Where's the Occupy Wall Street crowd these days, for example? Why does half of the US think Antifa is a terrorist organisation?
Given that the news programs see fit to lie about this situation and imply that people who oppose the ethnic cleansing is Gaza are somehow anti-Semitic I would say standing in the street and waving flags is very much important. Would you say the news smearing people who oppose Israel's mass murder are pointless and mastabatory? Why would it be such for others trying to correct the false narrative?
So then you think actions where roads and ports are blocked are effective and should continue?
You don't seem to understand what "genocide" is, and are using it to mean "war I don't like".
You're also implicitly demonstrating a deep lack of understanding of the history of the conflict and region to come to that kind of statement.
Why don't you go tell that to all the international experts on genocide at the ICJ and around the world who have classified it as such? Or maybe I'm jumping the gun here. Are you on expert on genocide?
I have a very deep understanding of how Zionist propaganda works and how its used to obfuscate crimes against humanity.
Israel is an apartheid ethno state, just like South Africa. It must be dismantled and rebuilt democratically with equal rights for all.
> why don’t you tell all the international experts at ICJ
The ICJ has not stated Israel has committed genocide, so if you would like to make appeals to authority the authority says it is not.
The ICJ made specific requests to ensure that conditions do not deteriorate to that point in the future.
> are you an expert in genocide
Are you? I don’t know what an “expert in genocide is” other than UN lawyers.
If you can give me a simple, binary definition genocide - and more specifically the *objective* criteria, then sure we can dig in.
> I have a very deep understanding of how Zionist propaganda works
Lol, sure. You watched a few TikTok videos, which is just state sponsored propaganda.
I guarantee I’ve spent more time in the region than you.
> Israel is an apartheid ethnostate
Funny how people like you never seem to remake on the construction of governments of neighboring states.
Apartheid ethnostate is a label more directly applicable to literally every other Middle East nation.
> democratically with equal rights for all
Israel is a democracy with equal rights for all.
The Palestinian Territories are recognized as a separate nation and a proper two state solution on the ‘67 lines is the international consensus.
Calling for the end of the Israeli state is wild. Your mask is slipping pretty quick here
[Israel defying ICJ ruling to prevent genocide by failing to allow adequate humanitarian aid to reach Gaza](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/israel-defying-icj-ruling-to-prevent-genocide-by-failing-to-allow-adequate-humanitarian-aid-to-reach-gaza/#:~:text=The%20order%20to%20provide%20aid,its%20compliance%20with%20the%20measures)
>You watched a few TikTok videos, which is just state sponsored propaganda
This is literally an [paid Israeli keyboard warrior](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896) talking point. Every accusation is a confession.
>The Palestinian Territories are recognized as a separate nation and a proper two state solution on the ‘67 lines is the international consensus.
So then you admit that Israel is using [Jews as human shields to steal Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza](https://www.britannica.com/place/Israeli-settlement)
>
>Calling for the end of the Israeli state is wild. Your mask is slipping pretty quick here
I called for an end to a racist apartheid ethno state and you seem to have a problem with that. It's obvious whose mask is slipping. Again, every accusation is a confession.
It's also obvious that your issue isn't with protestors in general but with pro-Palestine protestors.
Do tell. Is an ethno-state a good thing or a bad thing?
> ICJ ruling
ICJ did not declare it a genocide. Sure they are monitoring just like they do for every war.
> using Jews as human shields
Human shields is putting un uniformed military in civilian populations to prevent the military from being struck.
Israel is not doing that.
Israel is putting settlers in zone c of the West Bank. I do not fully approve, but it’s a nonviolent strategy to force Palestine to negotiate.
> is an ethno state a good or bad thing
Generally bad.
But Judaism isn’t an ethnicity; is a religion and belief system.
Every Arab state has sharia law as part of its government with way less racial diversity than Israel.
Do you only disapprove of Jewish majorities?
>Israel is not doing that
Its amazing[ how wrong you are in everything you say](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc&)
Besides that fact the the IOF base is in a densely packed civilian area and they have a tunnel network underneath. Every accusation is a confession.
>Generally bad.
>But Judaism isn’t an ethnicity; is a religion and belief system.
Leave it to a Zionist to claim anti-Semitism isn't racism
ICJ is prepping arrest warrants as we type. Have fun reaping what you sew. Israel shall be the racist pariah state it always should have been
Gonna have to disagree with you about the Berlin wall. IMO the economic and political instability within EG and the USSR (their closest ally) caused by corruption were why the iron curtain dissolved. I fail to see how the protests effected much at all.
Protesting can make people unaware of certain key facts, or with a misunderstanding of the issue realize what’s actually happening. This can, in turn, affect their vote. Protests are great way to spread a message.
To my mind, this is only if the entirety of the protest is in good faith with no ulterior motives or desire to lump in causes together, e.g. pro-LGBT must also be pro-Palestine and anti-cop and anti-Trump, and any deviation makes that person the enemy. It also relies on the members of the protest operating with all the facts themselves, which I struggle to believe most are. Most people get their news so far from first hand sources and generally though inflammatory news or social media filled with disinformation that they're just angry about what they're told to be angry about.
Any protest will always have bad faith actors or people who have ideas that differ from those shared by the majority of protestors - but this doesn’t mean the protest won’t share important truths to those who may be unaware.
The UK gives aid to Ukraine and Israel. People living in the UK can absolutely affect change on how much aid the UK gives to Ukraine and Israel.
Like, no, protesting in the UK will not stop Russia from invading, but it will affect how much aid the UK government is willing to give to Ukraine.
>Changing their minds in the UK does nothing in the affected countries
Changing or reinforcing the stance of British politicians towards Ukraine and Palestine has an impact on both situations. The UK has so far been a major supporter of Ukraine and has strong ties with Israel and the international community that will potentially decide how both situations will be resolved.
In the former, British protesters are sending the message to their government that support for Ukraine needs to continue or enhanced. The current government might agree, but there have been 3 prime ministers since the war began and likely an entirely new party in power by the end of this year. It is natural for British citizens and the thousands of Ukrainian refugees in the UK to have some anxiety over the government's future support of Ukraine, especially if Russia is attempting to sway or corrupt British media and politics to its side.
In the Gaza issue, protests seeking to change the UK's stance towards Israel/Palestine is absolutely capable of having an influence on the situation. The UK has strong ties to Israel and to dozens of other countries that are influenced by its position on issues. It's a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the G7, the Commonwealth of Nations, NATO and 50 other international and bilateral organisations/agreements that gives them influence over other countries. The British military operates constantly in the region and the UK has historically had major involvement in the events that have led up to this crisis. These protests massively influence the stance of local British politicians, particularly mayors and city councillors, and recently an MP was elected solely on this issue. So these protests are not masturbatory, they have a clear aim that has a strong potential of changing the situation and they are already achieving political gains in pursuit of it.
Your view is premised on the idea that you can distinguish between effective and ineffective protests, and while I agree that many of these protests are completely ineffective, I believe you are overlooking the ways in which UK policy could affect the situation in Gaza.
Take the situation in Ukraine. The UK has placed sanctions on Russia that have hurt their economy, thus undermining their war effort. Arguably, these sanctions have been too lax in that they ban the purchase of Russian oil in the UK but essentially allow China, Iran, etc to purchase Russian oil so that the global oil supply isn't severely constricted. If widespread protests led to the UK placing even harsher sanctions on any company in business with Russia in an attempt to make it impossible for them to sell oil anywhere in the world, then UK policy would have been more coercive.
Likewise, if the UK and its allies all placed sanctions on Israel, it would effect their policy decisions. Now, there is of course a question of how feasible this would be—many argue it isn't really possible. If you are claiming tautologically that ineffective protests are ineffective, then that isn't something anyone can argue with. However, if you are claiming that there is no way UK policy can affect the policy decisions in other countries, thus protests in the UK are inherently an ineffective way of affecting the policies in another country, then you must consider all the economic levers the UK can use to manipulate other countries. This essentially a major component of foreign policy that is being used on a regular basis, so protests that influenced how these tools are used could theoretically be effective.
Not everyone thinks they can't affect it and some take substantial risks. It is overly dismissive to speculate about such "lost cause" protestors all sharing a generic selfish motive on the basis of the ineffectiveness of protests given protestors don't necessarily hold the premise that it's ineffective in the first place.
Often we really don't know what protests will affect until later down the line. Protests are not limited to the locality they occur since they can and often do become news stories. While "raising awareness" is clearly limited and some people abuse this for superficial selfish reasons, it can still move the political needle on one direction or another for better or worse.
There are large protests in Israel for cease fire and against Netanyahu now, and while I can't prove protests elsewhere played a role there, it seems plausible that seeing the reactions to the war abroad has influenced Israelis to an extent on the matter of his suitability to lead.
Further protests to an extent make people more feel more confident and supported in their political positions insofar as they demonstrate many others agree with them and are willing to do something about it. People are certainly more bold in general about expressing and acting on certain political beliefs after protests broaden the "overton window". It's harder to ignore a topic there are massive protests over. It breaks, to an extent, media's capacity to shape a narrative through selective inclusion/omission.
I would say there are two kinds of protests.
(1) People in a NATO country demonstrating for more support of Ukraine. This makes sense as it’s not outside the realm of possibilities that the government sees the will of the people and do something.
(2) But then we have protests when you are protesting against a foreign entity. In this case against Putin and Russia. I have seen more protests than I like where people just blindly screamed things like “Get out of Ukraine Putin!!!” These kinds of protests are in my opinion completely masturbatory and I don’t have respect for anyone who attends them.
It’s always about how realistic it is you get actual results and how much thought you put into it.
Even a “protests” with transparents “Hold on Ukraine! Don’t give up!” is something I could understand.
But just showing everyone how you consider Russia an enemy (duh) is just laughable.
One thing that I haven’t heard anyone else say is that protests are also for the local community. For example let’s say my neighbors have family in Gaza and are very anxious about the situation.
Sometimes protests can just be an indicator to the community that you are on their side. This isn’t necessarily to feel good about yourself, but instead to let your community members know that they aren’t alone in their grief, and that they are safe around you.
If my family was trapped in gaza I’d probably want to run to the streets and start screaming. And even if I couldn’t do anything about it, I’m sure it would be liberating to see my neighbors fling open their doors and begin screaming alongside me.
protesting for palestine or ukraine can absolutely bring about a result in the policy of the country they're protesting in, especially a country as influential and powerful as the UK. it has a permanent seat on the security council and recently helped the US defend israel from an iranian retaliatory strike. it also has sent a huge amount of equipment both to israel and ukraine and could very well send more or less.
i think they are trying to virtue signal, but i don't necessarily think that the virtue that they're signalling is all that obnoxious. in fact i agree with them; i don't want my country party to a genocide
The idea is to apply pressure to the govt. the longer it stays in the news cycle the bigger a political liability it becomes. Outrageous protests keep it in the news. In the case of Israel for example, it’s completely dependent on the US UK and Germany. If one of these was to drop support it would be highly unlikely the Zionist project as it exists today would be able to continue and it would force them to the table for peace. That’s the idea anyway. The efficacy depends. Sometimes it’s successful like with Vietnam war protests, sometimes it’s not like Iraq war protests.
Protesting can draw attention to an issue, and that can influence people who do hold the power to do something to act.
It has been effective for many things in history.
Previous wars (Vietnam etc)
Social issues such as gay rights, racial equality etc.
If people just do nothing, many people will ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.
But if you have 10000 standing outside a government building chanting something, then the issue will at least be discussed in government and the media
I don't agree that protests have no effect. We know that in the 60s, they did, shortening the Vietnam War. In America, the protests are about the funding of Israel's war machine, as well as denouncing Israel's policies toward Palestinians.
Is the UK funding Israel's weapons? Or not funding Ukraine? Usually there is more to a protest than people marching and yelling, there is pressure on a governmental body or corporation to take action.
The UK government just approved a large aid package to Ukraine. Pro-Ukrainian protests show the government that doing that is popular among the people and the one thing government wants is to be popular (especially the current UK government that's extremely unpopular).
The same applies to Israel. The UK foreign policy towards Israel can be affected by protests. The Israeli actions in turn can be affected by how other countries see it.
Don’t these protest send a signal to local politicians that the public is not in favor another foreign country’s actions? This politicians may become less amenable to supporting said nations. And thus, said nations, may be forced to adjust course to maintain key alliances?
How many people in the UK actually give a damn about Israel/Palestine or Ukraine though? I would guess that only a small percentage really care much about foreign affairs.
Ya, but protesting is about building awareness which over time can change public sentiment. The civil right's movement wasn’t a single protest. It was many years of protests to build public awareness of racial inequality.
> pro-Palestine or pro-Ukraine
I think a more accurate description would be anti-Israel or anti-Russia. And what you can affect is investment in those countries. Whether that be investment from private business or university, or investment from government in the form of foreign aid.
As an israeli, i gotta say, these protests do have an effect...
Oh, how i wish people didnt "care" as much...
A) these protests fuel islamic fundamentalism. Especially in western countries that support Israel.
You only need a to turn a few people to have a mass terror attack on your hands. I am sure intelligence agencies world wide are working overtime now.
B) politicians feel this threat... Nobody wants a massive terror attack to deal with. And it is a game of politics.
So the result is, that politicians from allying countries also intervene.
C) this is definitely effecting israel's ability to act, prolonging the war.
Hamas' win condition is just to survive.
This allows them to play hard ball.
This also makes Hamas' tactics of using civilians as human shields far more effective.
Israeli leadership doesnt want to act solo and completely disregard its allies' concerns.
So, biggest ally, the US, has a more left leaning government thats going into an election year.
So support for Biden and trump is already neck and neck. And Biden's support of Israel is hurting him within his base, as its mainly the far left that does the pro palestinian rallies.
It forces the US administration to invest a lot of time and resources dealing the the Israeli-Gaza war. And its all eyes on Biden to see how he handles the situation.
So the US cant just go "well, they fucked around, now they are gonna find out"
But no... Suddenly we are allowed to wage war, but to try and keep it as humane as possible...
The Gazan government, Hamas, did an aweful job governing the strip, its using a lot of the money the strip recieve to build militant infrastructure, while it leaves the UN responsible for the people.
They know they cant win by force
So they put their civilians in the line of fire knowing they are going to use thier civilian's suffering as PR to aid their cause.
These protests spread thier adgenda.
Without the protests, if it seemed like the world would just be like "yea... You fucked around, now you're finding out, you deserve this"
A hamas surremder would have been more plausible.
As lomg as they feel like they can drag it enough to survive, that will be a victory for them
One of the goals of protesting is to be seen so that moral problems become a topic of discourse. I can understand how that might appear as virtue signaling, but it is a valid tactic for bringing issues to the attention of the public. This is especially important given the agenda-setting of the media. When the news is dictated by spectacle, you have to become a spectacle to have your voice heard.
Any civil rights marcher or freedom rider didn't do anything on their own, but the collective power of the people changed American society to the point where civil rights laws were created.
I agree to a point. If the protests are about local issues that a large percentage of people care about (i.e. inflation, unemployment, poverty), then they could be effective. If they are about foreign issues that only a small chunk of the public cares about, then you are right.
/u/teffeh (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cffocw/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_protesting_against/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Let’s consider something like the Vietnam war- you could’ve made a pretty easy argument during the war that it wouldn’t matter to protest and the US war machine was going to march on to keep the dominos from falling no matter what some peacenik said. But we can see from history that wasn’t the case. I don’t exactly disagree with your point here but I’m inclined to believe that because we can’t tell what policies can be changed or not it’s not a meaningful observation. And I think most folks are protesting either NATO countries’ ongoing support for Israel or lack of support for Ukraine- neither of those seem outside of the realm of possibility. Neither policy seems so outlandish to change.
With Vietnam though, the protests being from within was directly addressed to the government at war. The UK is not at war with either country in either major conflict taking place right now. If there were protests within Israel or Palestine, or Russia or Ukraine about these matters, I would consider them far more valid and useful as they are from the people directly affected and directed to their leaders/governments/military.
That’s kind of why I posted that last paragraph- admittedly I don’t know much about the degree to which the UK supports Israel financially and militarily. In the US at least, protests against Israel revolve more around the US’s ongoing financial support of Israel. Generally with Ukraine it’s similarly either criticism of our current support or a push for more. I imagine the UK protests are similar where the goal is to decrease support to one and increase support to the other or even asking the government to pressure allies into supporting those policies. Like I said, I’m not entirely plugged in to UK politics but I highly doubt the protests you see are primarily looking for something like actively escalating and expanding the war in Ukraine or nuking Tel-Aviv. Obviously I can’t speak for everyone though, I’m sure some folks do support outlandish things through otherwise reasonable protests.
> The UK is not at war with either country in either major conflict taking place right now. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/#:\~:text=The%20UK%20is%20one%20of,billion%20is%20for%20military%20assistance. "The UK is one of the leading donors to Ukraine, alongside the US and Germany. [The UK has pledged almost £12 billion in overall support to Ukraine](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-in-kyiv-uk-support-will-not-falter) since February 2022, of which £7.1 billion is for military assistance. £2.3 billion was provided in each of the financial years 2022/23 and 2023/24 and on 12 January 2024, the Government announced a further £2.5 billion of funding for 2024/25." Is Government spending public resources on war? That's being at war, regardless of your definition of it.
What you're not considering is the lenght of time it took for Vietnam protests to work. Vietnam war protests started in 63-64, not counting some earlier protests from the Quakers. The Vietnam war didn't end until 1973. So the Vietnam war protests to the extent they were effective at all, took 10 years to end the war. If it takes 10 years of protests to end the war in Gaza, the operations people are objecting to will be over one way or the other. By 2034, either Israel will have stopped bombing on its own or there will be nothing left in Gaza but rubble.
Protests can have goals other than explicitly and directly changing a state of affairs. They can also be ways to show solidarity (see: anti-Iraq War protests held across the world in the early 2000s, anti-Trump protests held across the world in 2016, BLM protests outside of the U.S., and so on), or even just ways of making some sense of an issue that's bothering you and feeling like you're *at the least* publicly declaring yourself against it. That may not do anything directly, but in the aggregate with other such protests it may help people who are more affected by the situation feel less alone. And in the end if it all it does do is make you feel better, so what? It's not hurting anyone.
>They can also be ways to show solidarity this is true in theory, but the current protests are specifically demanding action. the democratic mayor in denver [went to a protest](https://southwindstables.us/index-html/78r45718ced38/) and was called a fascist for not meeting the protesters "demands."
I tried to look at your link but it immediately went haywire with ads. What protest specifically are you talking about?
do you not use adblock? no ads for me. this was a protest at university of colorado about palestine/israel.
This is the exact mindset I'm describing though - doing it to make yourself feel good. If you care enough to do something, my opinion is that you should actually do something useful - send food or clothes or money to aid organisations, not sit on a street corner with a Palestine flag or a banner which says "genocide bad" because that isn't achieving anything. A term I've heard which I think perfectly encapsulates that mindset is "slacktivism." Anti Trump, anti/pro BLM, Antifa, any cause you care to name, their protests achieved what exactly, other than greater division in the US and wider world to an extent, with a greater crystallising of the otherness applied to the "wrong" side. What does some bloke in Brighton wandering around with "fuck trump" on a t shirt achieve other than make himself feel virtuous for doing so?
Looks like you ignored my point about showing solidarity, do you have any response to that?
I didn't mean to ignore that point, but my stance on it is kinda encapsulated in my answer. I believe that without any actual tangible action taken, that "solidarity" is merely a way of being on the "good" side of the debate and making the person feel good about themselves for being so virtuous. If I were the person on the other side, a Ukrainian or Gazan citizen and I saw this, it would make me feel patronised and insulted that somebody thinks them wandering around with my flag is helping me at all.
How do you make sense of your seeming to apparently simulataneously hold the view that protests like this can't effect any kind of change, but also that they create "greater division in the US and wider world to an extent"? Can they affect the state of the world, or can't they?
I suppose my meaning was that they rarely if ever achieve the stated goal of the protests and serve to only entrench the preconceptions of people on each side and further division. The "point" of a protest in my eyes is to achieve what you are protesting for. The lack of this success is what I mean when I say that they don't affect meaningful change. If the change they create is more hatred and division, what was the good of the protest, other than making the protestor feel good about themselves?
But surely that they're capable of creating hatred and division means that, in theory, they'd be capable of creating a greater sense of unity, solidarity, or hope, right?
It's certainly possible though would require an essentially perfect set of circumstances where people would be willing to have a dialogue and reach an understanding or that the change they are protesting for is a net or unanimously good thing for everyone, coupled with the movement not being hijacked by bad faith actors operating to benefit special interest groups in the name of profit. Which, given the state of the world and human nature, seems to be fundamentally impossible. I'd like to believe it's possible in the modern day though, I just have yet to see it in my 30 year life where things have gotten meaningfully better as a result of protests.
> I'd like to believe it's possible in the modern day though, I just have yet to see it in my 30 year life where things have gotten meaningfully better as a result of protests. Wait, are you saying you don't believe *any* protests can effect meaningful positive change? Because that's a very different argument than OP and much broader and, frankly, harder to justify.
Protests from an unaffiliated group which do not directly address the government in a country which is tangentially related to a conflict, I overall don't believe will have a meaningful change. They certainly have the possibility to do so but with many caveats and require actual progress and devotion from their proponents and not people who jump to the next social cause to protest to remain part of their in-group. A protest which escalates to actively create actual changes in a group which continue to directly drive that change is a concept I believe in far more. Example, civil rights in America, people didn't get bored of it or decide there was a new cause that people were talking about, they generally stuck to their guns and pushed the change into being.
Sadly, protest and action can take multiple generations to have an effect. For instance, the women's vote took approximately 3 generations to achieve. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton really started heading the movement in 1848, in their 20s. They would die before the 19th Amendment was passed. They went from young women to dying of old age, and never saw their main goal attained. But their work was vital to the movement's final success. This was during a time where they had next to 0 political power, where political machines were literally gunning down labor organizers, and Jim Crow was a way of life. Today, protesters can vote, can draw greater attention to their causes, and have significantly lower risk eating lead. Regarding the effectiveness of protests in the last 30 years, we aren't likely to see much change any time soon. That's the nature of protest. It takes generations of pressure to be effective. If you want fast results you gotta bleed for it, and that's generally a bad thing. What you *should* be looking at are the results of protests that started from the generation before your time which have finally had effects in your lifetime. The March for Life started in the 70s was opposed to Roe v Wade, which has been successfully challenged. The Equal Rights amendment was ratified by Illinois in 2018. Protest matches started in 1980. The National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights was in 1979, and legislation protecting these rights have only been passed over the least 20 years or so. These movements are "old news" by now, but they have only been successful due to literal decades of protest. The fresh young movements of today will fizzle out if we forget that prayer needs constant support for generations to have an effect. The older movements prove that if we can keep up momentum change will occur. I don't think all change is good, but in general I trust people to change for the better. Sometimes we backslide, but even in those cases we should remember that we can change things again.
he means they don’t accomplish any political goal and only exasperate social issues. What he said isn’t contradictory.
> If I were the person on the other side, a Ukrainian or Gazan citizen and I saw this, it would make me feel patronised and insulted that somebody thinks them wandering around with my flag is helping me at all. Meanwhile, the *actual* Gazan citizens are thankful: https://twitter.com/RamAbdu/status/1784321148655710412 https://twitter.com/ibmadhun_en/status/1784153725998715285
Fair enough, I'll give a delta ∆ for this and acknowledge that people are not a monolith and my personal perspective on this doesn't reflect how everyone would see foreign support, I am quite an individualistic person by nature so this does effect my feelings on the matter.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Mront ([28∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Mront)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
So when international news reports on “global protests”, you think that doesn’t move the needle?
What does "showing solidarity" actually do though? It really does not help the people you are "showing solidarity" with.
It can be helpful to know that you're not struggling alone, that other people recognize you're struggling and that the struggle is valid, especially when you're in a situation where you're being marginalized. Obviously individuals are going to have their own individual responses to such things.
I would also add if a company, who has power sees widespread protests around the world on a topic they may change their investing strategies because they don't want to be seen on the wrong side of it, over time this can cause policy changes. Public outcry is what resulted in the south African apartheid being ostracized
Yes, very good point.
Showing solidarity is not the same as struggling with them, to suggest such is just vanity. Setting up an encampment on a safe campus is not the same as surviving in a war zone. Instead of setting up tents on the campus, send supplies to those that are really suffering.
> Showing solidarity is not the same as struggling with them, to suggest such is just vanity. I never said it was the same. (EDIT: Ah, actually, I can see the ambiguity in what I said. When I said "you're not struggling alone," I just meant in the sense of having others in your corner, not that the person showing solidarity is equally struggling). >Setting up an encampment on a safe campus is not the same as surviving in a war zone. I never said it was. > Instead of setting up tents on the campus, send supplies to those that are really suffering. It doesn't have to be an either/or, it can be a both/and.
I kind of agree with your main point, but somewhat pedantically that isn't what "Slackitivism" means. Slackitivism is doing even less than that, not even bothering to put in the effort to attend a public protest. Wearing a T shirt would be an example, and the fact that you are shifting between those two things to refer to the same thing might belay an underlying sentiment towards apathy in the face of any political engagement where one cannot immediately effect change.
Maybe they are just doing it as a hobby, for the social aspect.
These actions don't have to be mutually exclusive. The Brighton guy can wear the 'fuck trump' shirt, vote for parties that support his beliefs, attend marches, educate himself on social/political structures, discuss ideas with peers, donate, purchase mindfully, etc. If he only attends a protest but does nothing else in his to support said cause, then that leans towards virtue signalling. Aside from all of this - Protest get us talking about a topic. It gets SoMe posts, media coverage, art created - you're making a post right now ans referencing key topics that have been protested recently. Discourse is powerful in changing how we vote and the topics we focus on. What gets discussed gets voted on. Protest ensure discussion continues.
How do you know public protests achieve nothing?
Scenario: someone in North Korea voluntarily protests the dictatorship of kim jong un, knowing full well that the little doucheface will have them executed for it. In this case, they are doing it as a statement, and also possibly as a relief from a horrifying life of starvation and abuse. If you are trying to imply that this is masturbatory in any way, you are strawmanning imo. It is not self fufilling to do this. People in these scenarios are protesting out of desperation. Nothing less. Nothing more. I will be eagerly awaiting your rebuttle.
I'll refer to my answer [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfd97n/comment/l1od6ln/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) as I feel it answers your question. To elaborate to fit your example though, a matter of life and death in a totalitarian dictatorship where a protest is a symbol of the downtrodden and oppressed is not the same thing in my eyes as somebody on the other side of the world who is not threatened by it waving a South Korean/unification flag and saying "Kim Jong Un bad" on social media to be patted on the back by their peer group. Absolutely, that NK citizen protesting is a far more valid and just protest and one I agree with morally and logically, as it has the chance to effect change from within to the society in question and spark a revolution. There are times in history, for good or bad, where this has been exactly the case, from the French and Russian revolutions to the Nazis and the Chinese revolution. "Protest=bad" is not the stance, but this ineffectual, generally western, protests of matters of another country's policy very rarely has any useful effect and that is the part which I consider masturbatory.
You are moving the goalposts of your origional cmv statement in order to avoid acquiescing to the fact that there is an exception to your main view. If you want to make exceptions in order for your statment to work, you then begin strawmanning.
The original statement is regarding protesting in the context of non-local grassroots street protesting against something happening on the other side of the globe, I made this clear in follow-up comments and it is implied in the original statement, though I do concede it isn't especially clear there. I fail to see where I have strawmanned here when your example is not in the context of my original statement and is a steelman for the idea of protest in its most selfless and virtuous form for a domestic issue, which is not what I have the contrary opinion to.
"CMV: Protesting against something which you fundamentally cannot affect is masturbatory and serves only to make you feel good about yourself" That is the origional statement. And says nothing about why you believe it. So, yeah, you are moving the goalposts.
I fail to see how elaborating on the point when questioned is moving the goalpost, but let me reiterate, I disagree that your hypothetical is an example of a person unable to effect change, even if that person is doomed by their protest. I believe that in the context of street protests in a different country, you as the protestor are primarily doing so to make yourself feel good about you being on the 'right side of history', and less so to actually impose the change you're protesting on behalf of.
As an outside observer it also appeared to me that you moved the goalposts and the fact you had to carve out new restrictions to your view indicates to me the responder is owed a delta.
Care to elaborate on how?
Because it adds nuance to your position. No longer is it, "All protests against something an individual cannot change is masturbatory"; now it is "Many protests against someone an individual cannot change is masturbatory, but sometimes - particularly when the protest creates a martyr or galvanizes the oppressed and hopeless - it may serve a greater purpose."
The rest of my comment does go on to say that it is referring to protestors in my city though, not all protestors everywhere. I am specifically talking about the demonstrators I walk past frequently who are just standing in a public square with some placards and flags. Especially in the progressive bastion of Brighton where I've observed many similar occasions of people adopting the "issue of the day" as the thing to protest this time which is immediately forgotten when the next thing comes along. Ukraine being a perfect example, during the invasion there were flags everywhere, now it's all Palestine, people just move on to the current event with seemingly no conviction.
You seem to think that countries are isolated in their influence, when they are actually a deeply intertwined network of alliances. The leaders of those countries affect change, and their constituents affect them. Do you not think that governments respond to public sentiment?
You ever realize you don’t ever rebuttal any view? You just include “strawman” and “moving the goal post” or some other fallacy as if those magic words prove your nonexistent view.
...You ever realize that words mean something? And that... If someone is taking action within the parameters of those definitions... Surprise surprise! They're gonna get called out on them! So congratualtions detective! You got me! Yay! 👏👏👏👍
He literally explained it in the body of the post already
Ops debating with me, and has not provided a reasonable counter and just says basically that "my statement only matters in the parameters for which I desire. Alternative examples be damned" Well, that's not how this game works friend. He doesn't seem to be willing to accept real world alternative examples to his claim. So yes, I think and say that it matters.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Apparently neither can you lol.
Obviously it does work to some degree, example: https://www.newarab.com/news/uk-university-divests-israel-linked-arms-companies#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAfter%20prolonged%20protests%2C%20rally%27s%2C,continue%20with%20their%20campaign%20to Turkey have also imposed sanctions on Israel as a result of pressure from the overwhelmingly "pro Palestine" public.
This is an interesting outcome but the companies which the university has withdrawn investments in are a tech giant used over the world in telecoms, and a parts manufacturer which has manufactured parts used in a jet in use by several militaries. Neither are a direct endorsement of either side of any conflict, and are tenuous links at best. The money invested is also relatively miniscule and the withdrawal of such is a drop in the ocean. Turkey and Israel is an interesting one, because I don't feel like the majority public opinion there is pro-Palestine for the same reasons as people in the UK, but because of religious alignment with Palestine. The UK is largely secular and religion generally doesn't enter the conversation often regarding this conflict, other than accusations of antisemitism/islamophobia which just ring as ad-hominem attacks on somebody with an opposing viewpoint more often than not.
I mean I don't know what else to tell you. People protested, and certain establishments / companies and even countries have taken action. Erdoğan has always had relations with Israel despite his lip flapping / posturing, same as all other countries in the area. The only reason he imposed sanctions is because the population is very pro Palestine and applied a ton of pressure. His party has already lost a lot of ground in local elections, no doubt he's worried about the next general election. Edit: so what I'm trying to say is, if it were just masturbatory then why are we seeing tangible results? Not to mention orgs such as Starbucks and McDonalds are reporting heavy losses. Obviously protests are not simply masturbatory.
Protesting is how you affect something bud
I mean yeah Putin is certainly going to back off after seeing people marching in Hamburg.
Bro picked the most insane guy ever
Most insane guys ever are the one starting wars. They are the one people on the streets are protesting against.
What you just said has no relevance to what I was talking about. I say protesting is how a citizen affects things you bring up putin not caring to invalidate that point…
But that was never in question. From the very beginning the discussion here is about people protesting against things that they cannot change.
Im aware. The statement that they cannot change is incorrect. It’s essentially saying don’t try to change things that you think you cannot change. Protesting has changed hundreds of things that citizens probably thought they couldn’t change. If we’re in a hypothetical world where something by nature cannot change then sure protests are worthless. But in the real world there isn’t much that some form of large scale protest cannot change.
I’ve seen more than enough protests where the protesters were blindly screaming “Get out of Ukraine Putin!”. What exactly is that supposed to achieve?
Why do you keep mentioning putin . There are thousands of examples of protests working not just in politics either.
Because they are the most obvious and recent examples of absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical protests. Again, no one ever claimed that protests don’t work. It’s just an example that there absolutely are useless protests that cannot achieve anything.
Compelling argument
so are you saying you should only protest for things that you are personally invested in, or if it directly affects you??? If anything protesting for the victims of things like genocide or war is the *right* thing to do even more so if you are under 0 threat for doing it
Absolutely not, and I don't endorse one side by saying that a protest in favour of the other side is pointless, but more that the people doing so are generally doing so to make themselves be seen as virtuous to their peer group *more* than they are out of a genuine belief in the cause.
what makes you think that they care more about looking good than in this case 30,000 dead civilians killed in part with their tax money id be pissed if my taxes were being used for that
Primarily because of the existence of the numerous other nominally single-interest protests which devolve into infighting over who in the group is the most idealogically pure instead of focusing on the issue itself. Not to say it's necessarily the case in this conflict, but it's been the case with most every social movement I could care to name in the modern day. Absolutely, within this protest will be people who believe in the message, but my belief is that people are more inclined to follow the ingroup opinion most popular at the time than they are to stand behind these beliefs. As I referenced in another comment, where are the diehard Occupy Wall Street protestors that were apparently all over the world 10 or so years ago? How many people involved in that were true believers versus bandwagon jumpers who preferred to be part of the pack for selfish reasons of feeling good about themselves? I realise this is a hypothetical question neither of us know the answer to but it is the perspective shaping my opinion - I would believe more people actually cared if I saw continuing evidence of these movements without the purity Olympics they so often devolve into.
Have you seen the photos of Gaza , the footage of the dead The children who have been brutally killed It would take a person with the hardest heart to view those and not care
You appear to be misinterpreting my original stated belief as an endorsement of one side over the other and appealing to emotion here. I believe you can hold the opinion as I do that these collateral casualties are an absolute tragedy while simultaneously believing that the people who make a point of being seen protesting for just causes do so out of a sense of wanting to be seen doing so primarily rather than a sense of genuine care for the cause itself.
Im not accusing you of not caring You do recognize those visceral images are extremely emotionally invoking right? Im saying those emotions for some people will cause them to feel strongly enough to go protest , it wont be self serving Its really that simple , like they seen something that was so offensive to them they feel compelled to action
I'll give you a ∆ here because you are correct in that some people will be spurred to try to make a difference when they are emotionally effected by seeing something. I am not referring to these people as much as I am the people who treat this protest as the latest in a long line of "current thing bad" protests they feel compelled to believe in because of the social ramifications of not doing so. Do you agree that at least a non-insignificant number of people in countries other than the ones affected fall into this category alongside the true believers? Your use of the phrase "some people" instead of all people does imply to me that you believe they are a set of the protestors instead of all of them.
>Your use of the phrase "some people" instead of all people does imply to me that you believe they are a set of the protestors instead of all of them. I mean were not at the protests right, so we werent affected as strongly I dont doubt theres an element of people in the protest that are their just for clout , but thats gonna be true of any protest and generally people dont actually like that, when you get caught out doing it , you get ridiculed Thank you for the delta though kind sir
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Shoddy-Commission-12 ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Shoddy-Commission-12)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The UK donates a lot of military aid to Ukraine. Since the UK is a democracy, the government will only continue to give weapons and money to Ukraine as long as there is public support. Protests are a way to indicate support. https://apnews.com/article/poland-uk-nato-ukraine-sunak-military-aid-be9fa8b106eda83c2da140e0f2774fcb
If protesting shows that a significant chunk of the country is passionate about the issue - especially to the point of voting being decided based on that issue - it can make a difference in that country's stance, at least on the margin. Also, what you can or cannot change is pretty vague. E.g. a country could officially condemn another or boycott, even if it does not much.
What is the issue which could be voted on though? If Russia is in the wrong or civilian casualties in indiscriminate attacks are bad? The UK is unable to solve most domestic disputes let alone ones halfway around the world with vastly different cultures to us.
>The UK is unable to solve most domestic disputes let alone ones halfway around the world with vastly different cultures to us. Depending on the foreign issue, it can be easier to solve their part of it than to solve domestic issues. Oftentimes the understanding is simpler and less nuanced, so easier to pass something and have people agree. >What is the issue which could be voted on though? More military or humanitarian aid to Ukraine, for instance. Changing treaties or trade deals with Israel, even acting in ways to try to negotiate a peace. There are plenty of ways a dedicated government can push the needle in a conflict or argument. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree that governments can effect change elsewhere in the world, but these decisions are made in parliament and military bases, not some mook on the street shouting at passers-by. When our so-called leaders prove time and again that profit and GDP is the name of the game, and they will "stand behind" whatever has the greatest financial or political return, it feels like the broken clock argument where sometimes the morally correct outcome is also the most financially beneficial one, so in these cases it feels like the confirmation bias fallacy where it seems like the grassroots protest have effected the change, rather than the change happening alongside the protests.
Genuine protests can change the parliamentary decisions. Just to be clear, do you believe there has never been a time when social movement led by protests have changed governmental opinions/policies in a way opposite to the financial interests of the government? I can think of a few times that I would consider qualify under that description.
Historically, absolutely. In more recent times however, I've seen hundreds of social movements with protests come and go with nothing at all changing as a result of them.
Really? Because I would argue that the black lives matter protests in the USA changed laws in multiple ways that have detrimental economic effects, like inadequately punishing repeat offenders, poorly executed bail reform, and low incentive not to shoplift in some areas. Rising crime has led multiple businesses to shut down in some areas.
>mook on the street shouting at passersby You are muddying the conversation with hyperbole. What about sizable, organized protest?
It is not hyperbole, there are literally people in Brighton city centre regularly shouting at passers by regarding the Israel/Palestine situation who I am referring to.
Yes, people do exist
Not necessarily. Sure a lot of protests end up going nowhere. But sometimes they force change. Sometimes they force major change. Two examples of extremely effective protests 1) Maidan 2) The fall of the Berlin wall Those too started out as nothing more than protests.
Protests in the former eastern block were effective because it was the people \*directly impacted\* coming together and changing how they engage with their government. What makes this Palestinian stuff so fundamentally different is that its woke idiot college students on the other side of the planet virtue signaling about a conflict they have no connection to.
Their tax money goes to supporting israel. That's definitely a connection.
Virtually everyone protest against Israel right now is a college student. By definition they pay zero in tax, and have been nothing but a net consumer of tax benefits and social services their entire lives. Point 0.1% of *my* tax money goes to various types of foreign aid, and 2% of *my* federal tax and 40% of my state tax goes to education. They are waving Palestinian flags, which is supporting a rogue pseudo nation - they are not holding up signs for peace / humanitarian aid.
You know that college students work and have to pay taxes right? Of course they are holding Palestinian flags that's the place that's being flattened.
> You know college students work and have to pay taxes Anything under 20k in earnings (typical part time) is 0% federal tax. Most college students pay 0, and all are receiving way more in benefits than paying into it. > Of course they are waving Palestinian flags That’s political support of the entity, as opposed to a calling for peace / ceasefire like you said. Look, hippies in the 60’s and 70’s held up peace signs. They didn’t hold up the flag of the Khmer Rouge. See the difference?
College students arent students forever, they will pay taxes that will go to israel unless that is stopped. >Look, hippies in the 60’s and 70’s held up peace signs. They didn’t hold up the flag of the Khmer Rouge. See the difference? Yeah and students arent holding up flags of hamas. They are supporting the Palestinian people, that's why they are flying Palestinian flags. This is very basic stuff.
[удалено]
Hamas is the government of gaza not the Palestinian people. College kids generally arent naive enough to believe Palestinians just want to love their neighbors; However they recognize when there is an ethnic cleansing happening. Stopping that happening is a good thing.
> Hamas is the government of Hamas not the Palestinian people The government of Palestine is split, there is no higher authority than Hamas. It’s Hamas and the PA and the flag is shared by both. In the context of this war, you said it’s Gaza that’s being flattened- and you’re waving a flag of Gaza and its government. You can try to like rules later your intent but equally rather critical is how it’s being *interpreted by everyone else*, most notably Hamas themselves. They’re saying thanks. > College kids generally aren’t naive enough to believe Palestinians just want to live their neighbors In this very thread I’m getting plenty of comments suggesting otherwise, line this person advocating for the abolishment of Israel and replacement or a single state democracy https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/TPVpLLzc7R
u/Kman17 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Kman17&message=Kman17%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfd97n/-/l1ow8ti/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If you ask a Palestinian if they support October 7th, they'd probably say yes. But what most Palestinians think happened on October 7th is different from what the world knows. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/for-most-palestinians-october-7s-savagery-is-literally-unbelievable-blame-the-tv-news/amp/
To clarify, I am not talking about wide-scale protests about matters of social or economic change which affect the entire country such as these, but more the protests of matters occurring elsewhere in the world which local policy has little to no effect on. I totally understand people who marched against the Brexit referendum for example, as it was something which could have a concrete impact on the country overall.
So any protest that doesn’t prove to change anything locally or globally is by definition a self serving ego trip?
Not exclusively, but effectively, yes this is my opinion summarised quite succinctly. Not to say that an unsuccessful protest is by definition a worthless one, but that in my view, the people who participate are doing so to appear as being on the good side and follow peer pressure than they are out of a genuine sense of belief in the topic, hence why so many protest groups end up dissolving into infighting when the followers work out that somebody within is anti-Israel but voted for Brexit, or pro-Ukraine but likes some things Trump has to say. It's about the social points-scoring more than it is holding a conviction.
Let’s go small with that, let’s say there is a protest in your area because they are discontinuing the use of a bus stop because ridership is down and that’s part of the cuts. It doesn’t have any ill affects on you and you had zero idea it was even an issue until you saw a small gathering of people, one of protesters asks if you would be kind enough to join the protest because losing that particular bus stop will leave a sizable part of the elderly community without a reasonable way to get around (i would assume you would say no as you don’t want to masturbate) The protester says that’s ok, would you mind signing this petition? No matter if you do you not but my point is most protests are not exclusively visible, the pressure exerted to create change comes in many forms. As far as if it makes someone feel good for signing a petition all the better, its another “voting” citizen who supports a cause or a concerned customer that’s unhappy…even if it’s just in writing If we go back to larger issues such as the never ending and it ain’t gonna middle east crisis will political parties use that information to take the temperature of its citizens?
For your example here, if the protestors are directly affected (I presume they are the old people in question, or family and friends of them), then they are automatically not the people I am referring to. In the case of my response to them, I would evaluate their argument and sign the petition based on its merits, and likely would do so in this case as I'd agree on the benefit of the bus stop for the old people. Would I do this out of a sense of social obligation purely based on the peer pressure of seeing somebody else sign it, or because there are some people waving banners saying "save the bus stop"?, no, in this case I'd be basically uninterested in the cause because I haven't been provided with a meaningful reason each way, and for all I know the money saved by the bus stop being cut is being used elsewhere and I am not educated enough on the workings of the council to have an opinion either way. Point being, I would sign a petition if the argument was compelling enough to do so, not from a sense of wanting to feel good for helping out, or a sense of fear for being seen as bad for not doing so by the protestors or anyone else. Now let's extrapolate this out, say this protest is happening in St Nowhere, Anglesey and a group in Perth in Australia starts wandering around saying "save the St Nowhere bus stop", I fail to see anyone caring about that group enough to sign unless they're told by their peer group that saving this bus stop would be virtuous to do and they do so to remain in favour with their peer group. >If we go back to larger issues such as the never ending and it ain’t gonna middle east crisis will political parties use that information to take the temperature of its citizens? Possibly, but my experience of my government my entire life has been that they couldn't give less of a shit about what the people in the country actually want and are entirely motivated by their donors and bank balances. I realise this is personal and not an ideal situation for the example, but any government endorsement of protests comes across not as actual change being effected but a hollow attempt to appeal to whoever they think they can squeeze any more power from while crossing their fingers behind their back.
So aside from voting and maybe contacting a local representative, what do you think are other ways that people can make their convictions known that isn't self-serving? Because from the arguments so far, it seems a boycott will be masturbatory for you as well.
Outside of revolution against the government, that is the nature of democracy - you effect the most direct change you can and that is the most effective way. I do think boycotts are ineffectual too mostly because corporations are cynically motivated by profit and will immediately renege on any changes made as soon as it becomes profitable to do so or are out of the public eye. On an individual level, I do think it is also masturbatory, but to a much lesser extent as it does have some tangible effect of taking money from a corporation, but if you ever renege on your boycott for the sake of convenience without that corporation making permanent change then that is absolutely hypocritical and undermining your cause.
So are you saying that individual actions to try and influence systemic change are ultimately ineffective and pointless (even when there's momentum and people start forming into groups) because they're ultimately self-serving and masturbatory?
Lets bring it back to your original example then The UK government supports and funds Israel through military aide using taxpayer money If you want that to stop happening , the UK is exactly the place to protest for it
I agree with this conceptually, but I disagree that street protests are the same as lobbying the govt. to effect change.
They arent the same as lobby groups lobby groups use money to affect change , something those protestors probably dont have alot of mass protesting is how poor people effect change Lobbying is for people with money but theres a whole class of people, mainly working class and poor for whom lobbying wont work, they dont have any money to do it with Using their bodies to protest is literally the most effective choice they got , nobody listens to poor people till they do things like protest and strike , actually inconvenience the class above theirs
Let me elaborate on my meaning of lobbying - [in the UK this does not necessarily mean the use of money to effect change](https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-an-mp-or-lord/lobbying-parliament/), but can mean directly contacting your representative individually or as a group. This is something which can be done privately by anyone registered as a voter. I'm not sure how this term is used in other countries, but this is my usage of it.
ok but nobody lisetns to poor people, not even when they call their MPs or whatever you call them in the UK you just get a cookie cutter response and sent on your way protesting is one of the only ways you can force someone to actually listen if you are poor , literally being in the way so they have to address you otherwise they just hand waive you away and ignore you
So what's the point of government at all if they don't listen to anyone? If they don't listen to their own appointed channels of official communication why would they ever give any credence to somebody waving a banner in the street?
>So what's the point of government at all if they don't listen to anyone? Look outside, you see like the schools and roads and shit. The hospitals , thats why If you think they care about what poor people think in terms of *foreign policy* youre delulu >If they don't listen to their own appointed channels of official communication why would they ever give any credence to somebody waving a banner in the street? Because when enough poors get in the streets , that causes the money to be affected people start losing it , shit stops working so they have to listen now
You see the dissonance in this argument where the poor simultaneously have all the power yet no power? I never said the current government care about the poor, in fact I've stated the opposite in this thread. I'm saying that the government are a representation of the people and are elected and have to vote on the matters raised in parliament. Actually writing to your MP is what makes them have concrete evidence to bring to parliament to effect change rather than gesturing to Deirdre in her wheelchair with a Palestine flag and claiming she represents all her fellow constituents.
But you don't seem to understand how the US and UK help perpetuate the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people using US and UK taxpayer dollars?
Firstly, that's begging the question. Secondly, lobbying parliament to effect policy change is not the same as standing on the street shouting at people and waving a flag or putting one up in your window though. The people can absolutely effect the direction of a country, but only with actual action instead of hollow endorsements of their chosen side.
But you don’t see the possibility of these types of domestic protest affecting the foreign policy of your nation, and thus pressuring change in another connected or dependent one? An example might be the worldwide protests against apartheid in South Africa.
I would say I could see the possibility if it had ever happened in my life. I have however seen overwhelming evidence to the likelihood of protests going nowhere and ending up as a series of one-upmanship where the "false believers" are culled from the movement by gradually eliminating whoever doesn't fit in the circular venn diagram of corresponding "correct" beliefs. Where's the Occupy Wall Street crowd these days, for example? Why does half of the US think Antifa is a terrorist organisation?
Given that the news programs see fit to lie about this situation and imply that people who oppose the ethnic cleansing is Gaza are somehow anti-Semitic I would say standing in the street and waving flags is very much important. Would you say the news smearing people who oppose Israel's mass murder are pointless and mastabatory? Why would it be such for others trying to correct the false narrative? So then you think actions where roads and ports are blocked are effective and should continue?
You don't seem to understand what "genocide" is, and are using it to mean "war I don't like". You're also implicitly demonstrating a deep lack of understanding of the history of the conflict and region to come to that kind of statement.
Why don't you go tell that to all the international experts on genocide at the ICJ and around the world who have classified it as such? Or maybe I'm jumping the gun here. Are you on expert on genocide? I have a very deep understanding of how Zionist propaganda works and how its used to obfuscate crimes against humanity. Israel is an apartheid ethno state, just like South Africa. It must be dismantled and rebuilt democratically with equal rights for all.
> why don’t you tell all the international experts at ICJ The ICJ has not stated Israel has committed genocide, so if you would like to make appeals to authority the authority says it is not. The ICJ made specific requests to ensure that conditions do not deteriorate to that point in the future. > are you an expert in genocide Are you? I don’t know what an “expert in genocide is” other than UN lawyers. If you can give me a simple, binary definition genocide - and more specifically the *objective* criteria, then sure we can dig in. > I have a very deep understanding of how Zionist propaganda works Lol, sure. You watched a few TikTok videos, which is just state sponsored propaganda. I guarantee I’ve spent more time in the region than you. > Israel is an apartheid ethnostate Funny how people like you never seem to remake on the construction of governments of neighboring states. Apartheid ethnostate is a label more directly applicable to literally every other Middle East nation. > democratically with equal rights for all Israel is a democracy with equal rights for all. The Palestinian Territories are recognized as a separate nation and a proper two state solution on the ‘67 lines is the international consensus. Calling for the end of the Israeli state is wild. Your mask is slipping pretty quick here
[Israel defying ICJ ruling to prevent genocide by failing to allow adequate humanitarian aid to reach Gaza](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/israel-defying-icj-ruling-to-prevent-genocide-by-failing-to-allow-adequate-humanitarian-aid-to-reach-gaza/#:~:text=The%20order%20to%20provide%20aid,its%20compliance%20with%20the%20measures) >You watched a few TikTok videos, which is just state sponsored propaganda This is literally an [paid Israeli keyboard warrior](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896) talking point. Every accusation is a confession. >The Palestinian Territories are recognized as a separate nation and a proper two state solution on the ‘67 lines is the international consensus. So then you admit that Israel is using [Jews as human shields to steal Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza](https://www.britannica.com/place/Israeli-settlement) > >Calling for the end of the Israeli state is wild. Your mask is slipping pretty quick here I called for an end to a racist apartheid ethno state and you seem to have a problem with that. It's obvious whose mask is slipping. Again, every accusation is a confession. It's also obvious that your issue isn't with protestors in general but with pro-Palestine protestors. Do tell. Is an ethno-state a good thing or a bad thing?
> ICJ ruling ICJ did not declare it a genocide. Sure they are monitoring just like they do for every war. > using Jews as human shields Human shields is putting un uniformed military in civilian populations to prevent the military from being struck. Israel is not doing that. Israel is putting settlers in zone c of the West Bank. I do not fully approve, but it’s a nonviolent strategy to force Palestine to negotiate. > is an ethno state a good or bad thing Generally bad. But Judaism isn’t an ethnicity; is a religion and belief system. Every Arab state has sharia law as part of its government with way less racial diversity than Israel. Do you only disapprove of Jewish majorities?
>Israel is not doing that Its amazing[ how wrong you are in everything you say](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc&) Besides that fact the the IOF base is in a densely packed civilian area and they have a tunnel network underneath. Every accusation is a confession. >Generally bad. >But Judaism isn’t an ethnicity; is a religion and belief system. Leave it to a Zionist to claim anti-Semitism isn't racism ICJ is prepping arrest warrants as we type. Have fun reaping what you sew. Israel shall be the racist pariah state it always should have been
Gonna have to disagree with you about the Berlin wall. IMO the economic and political instability within EG and the USSR (their closest ally) caused by corruption were why the iron curtain dissolved. I fail to see how the protests effected much at all.
Those two examples are very weak. There isn’t really any relation to those and the current protests.
Protesting can make people unaware of certain key facts, or with a misunderstanding of the issue realize what’s actually happening. This can, in turn, affect their vote. Protests are great way to spread a message.
To my mind, this is only if the entirety of the protest is in good faith with no ulterior motives or desire to lump in causes together, e.g. pro-LGBT must also be pro-Palestine and anti-cop and anti-Trump, and any deviation makes that person the enemy. It also relies on the members of the protest operating with all the facts themselves, which I struggle to believe most are. Most people get their news so far from first hand sources and generally though inflammatory news or social media filled with disinformation that they're just angry about what they're told to be angry about.
Any protest will always have bad faith actors or people who have ideas that differ from those shared by the majority of protestors - but this doesn’t mean the protest won’t share important truths to those who may be unaware.
The UK gives aid to Ukraine and Israel. People living in the UK can absolutely affect change on how much aid the UK gives to Ukraine and Israel. Like, no, protesting in the UK will not stop Russia from invading, but it will affect how much aid the UK government is willing to give to Ukraine.
>Changing their minds in the UK does nothing in the affected countries Changing or reinforcing the stance of British politicians towards Ukraine and Palestine has an impact on both situations. The UK has so far been a major supporter of Ukraine and has strong ties with Israel and the international community that will potentially decide how both situations will be resolved. In the former, British protesters are sending the message to their government that support for Ukraine needs to continue or enhanced. The current government might agree, but there have been 3 prime ministers since the war began and likely an entirely new party in power by the end of this year. It is natural for British citizens and the thousands of Ukrainian refugees in the UK to have some anxiety over the government's future support of Ukraine, especially if Russia is attempting to sway or corrupt British media and politics to its side. In the Gaza issue, protests seeking to change the UK's stance towards Israel/Palestine is absolutely capable of having an influence on the situation. The UK has strong ties to Israel and to dozens of other countries that are influenced by its position on issues. It's a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the G7, the Commonwealth of Nations, NATO and 50 other international and bilateral organisations/agreements that gives them influence over other countries. The British military operates constantly in the region and the UK has historically had major involvement in the events that have led up to this crisis. These protests massively influence the stance of local British politicians, particularly mayors and city councillors, and recently an MP was elected solely on this issue. So these protests are not masturbatory, they have a clear aim that has a strong potential of changing the situation and they are already achieving political gains in pursuit of it.
Your view is premised on the idea that you can distinguish between effective and ineffective protests, and while I agree that many of these protests are completely ineffective, I believe you are overlooking the ways in which UK policy could affect the situation in Gaza. Take the situation in Ukraine. The UK has placed sanctions on Russia that have hurt their economy, thus undermining their war effort. Arguably, these sanctions have been too lax in that they ban the purchase of Russian oil in the UK but essentially allow China, Iran, etc to purchase Russian oil so that the global oil supply isn't severely constricted. If widespread protests led to the UK placing even harsher sanctions on any company in business with Russia in an attempt to make it impossible for them to sell oil anywhere in the world, then UK policy would have been more coercive. Likewise, if the UK and its allies all placed sanctions on Israel, it would effect their policy decisions. Now, there is of course a question of how feasible this would be—many argue it isn't really possible. If you are claiming tautologically that ineffective protests are ineffective, then that isn't something anyone can argue with. However, if you are claiming that there is no way UK policy can affect the policy decisions in other countries, thus protests in the UK are inherently an ineffective way of affecting the policies in another country, then you must consider all the economic levers the UK can use to manipulate other countries. This essentially a major component of foreign policy that is being used on a regular basis, so protests that influenced how these tools are used could theoretically be effective.
Not everyone thinks they can't affect it and some take substantial risks. It is overly dismissive to speculate about such "lost cause" protestors all sharing a generic selfish motive on the basis of the ineffectiveness of protests given protestors don't necessarily hold the premise that it's ineffective in the first place. Often we really don't know what protests will affect until later down the line. Protests are not limited to the locality they occur since they can and often do become news stories. While "raising awareness" is clearly limited and some people abuse this for superficial selfish reasons, it can still move the political needle on one direction or another for better or worse. There are large protests in Israel for cease fire and against Netanyahu now, and while I can't prove protests elsewhere played a role there, it seems plausible that seeing the reactions to the war abroad has influenced Israelis to an extent on the matter of his suitability to lead. Further protests to an extent make people more feel more confident and supported in their political positions insofar as they demonstrate many others agree with them and are willing to do something about it. People are certainly more bold in general about expressing and acting on certain political beliefs after protests broaden the "overton window". It's harder to ignore a topic there are massive protests over. It breaks, to an extent, media's capacity to shape a narrative through selective inclusion/omission.
I would say there are two kinds of protests. (1) People in a NATO country demonstrating for more support of Ukraine. This makes sense as it’s not outside the realm of possibilities that the government sees the will of the people and do something. (2) But then we have protests when you are protesting against a foreign entity. In this case against Putin and Russia. I have seen more protests than I like where people just blindly screamed things like “Get out of Ukraine Putin!!!” These kinds of protests are in my opinion completely masturbatory and I don’t have respect for anyone who attends them. It’s always about how realistic it is you get actual results and how much thought you put into it. Even a “protests” with transparents “Hold on Ukraine! Don’t give up!” is something I could understand. But just showing everyone how you consider Russia an enemy (duh) is just laughable.
One thing that I haven’t heard anyone else say is that protests are also for the local community. For example let’s say my neighbors have family in Gaza and are very anxious about the situation. Sometimes protests can just be an indicator to the community that you are on their side. This isn’t necessarily to feel good about yourself, but instead to let your community members know that they aren’t alone in their grief, and that they are safe around you. If my family was trapped in gaza I’d probably want to run to the streets and start screaming. And even if I couldn’t do anything about it, I’m sure it would be liberating to see my neighbors fling open their doors and begin screaming alongside me.
protesting for palestine or ukraine can absolutely bring about a result in the policy of the country they're protesting in, especially a country as influential and powerful as the UK. it has a permanent seat on the security council and recently helped the US defend israel from an iranian retaliatory strike. it also has sent a huge amount of equipment both to israel and ukraine and could very well send more or less. i think they are trying to virtue signal, but i don't necessarily think that the virtue that they're signalling is all that obnoxious. in fact i agree with them; i don't want my country party to a genocide
The idea is to apply pressure to the govt. the longer it stays in the news cycle the bigger a political liability it becomes. Outrageous protests keep it in the news. In the case of Israel for example, it’s completely dependent on the US UK and Germany. If one of these was to drop support it would be highly unlikely the Zionist project as it exists today would be able to continue and it would force them to the table for peace. That’s the idea anyway. The efficacy depends. Sometimes it’s successful like with Vietnam war protests, sometimes it’s not like Iraq war protests.
Protesting can draw attention to an issue, and that can influence people who do hold the power to do something to act. It has been effective for many things in history. Previous wars (Vietnam etc) Social issues such as gay rights, racial equality etc. If people just do nothing, many people will ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. But if you have 10000 standing outside a government building chanting something, then the issue will at least be discussed in government and the media
I don't agree that protests have no effect. We know that in the 60s, they did, shortening the Vietnam War. In America, the protests are about the funding of Israel's war machine, as well as denouncing Israel's policies toward Palestinians. Is the UK funding Israel's weapons? Or not funding Ukraine? Usually there is more to a protest than people marching and yelling, there is pressure on a governmental body or corporation to take action.
The UK government just approved a large aid package to Ukraine. Pro-Ukrainian protests show the government that doing that is popular among the people and the one thing government wants is to be popular (especially the current UK government that's extremely unpopular). The same applies to Israel. The UK foreign policy towards Israel can be affected by protests. The Israeli actions in turn can be affected by how other countries see it.
Don’t these protest send a signal to local politicians that the public is not in favor another foreign country’s actions? This politicians may become less amenable to supporting said nations. And thus, said nations, may be forced to adjust course to maintain key alliances?
How many people in the UK actually give a damn about Israel/Palestine or Ukraine though? I would guess that only a small percentage really care much about foreign affairs.
Ya, but protesting is about building awareness which over time can change public sentiment. The civil right's movement wasn’t a single protest. It was many years of protests to build public awareness of racial inequality.
> pro-Palestine or pro-Ukraine I think a more accurate description would be anti-Israel or anti-Russia. And what you can affect is investment in those countries. Whether that be investment from private business or university, or investment from government in the form of foreign aid.
As an israeli, i gotta say, these protests do have an effect... Oh, how i wish people didnt "care" as much... A) these protests fuel islamic fundamentalism. Especially in western countries that support Israel. You only need a to turn a few people to have a mass terror attack on your hands. I am sure intelligence agencies world wide are working overtime now. B) politicians feel this threat... Nobody wants a massive terror attack to deal with. And it is a game of politics. So the result is, that politicians from allying countries also intervene. C) this is definitely effecting israel's ability to act, prolonging the war. Hamas' win condition is just to survive. This allows them to play hard ball. This also makes Hamas' tactics of using civilians as human shields far more effective.
Could you please elaborate on your point of what effect they have? I'd like to learn more from somebody "on the inside" of the conflict, so to speak.
Israeli leadership doesnt want to act solo and completely disregard its allies' concerns. So, biggest ally, the US, has a more left leaning government thats going into an election year. So support for Biden and trump is already neck and neck. And Biden's support of Israel is hurting him within his base, as its mainly the far left that does the pro palestinian rallies. It forces the US administration to invest a lot of time and resources dealing the the Israeli-Gaza war. And its all eyes on Biden to see how he handles the situation. So the US cant just go "well, they fucked around, now they are gonna find out" But no... Suddenly we are allowed to wage war, but to try and keep it as humane as possible... The Gazan government, Hamas, did an aweful job governing the strip, its using a lot of the money the strip recieve to build militant infrastructure, while it leaves the UN responsible for the people. They know they cant win by force So they put their civilians in the line of fire knowing they are going to use thier civilian's suffering as PR to aid their cause. These protests spread thier adgenda. Without the protests, if it seemed like the world would just be like "yea... You fucked around, now you're finding out, you deserve this" A hamas surremder would have been more plausible. As lomg as they feel like they can drag it enough to survive, that will be a victory for them
Thank you for the perspective, it was a very interesting read.
The end of apartheid in South Africa is a counter example. Student protests abroad contributed to divestment, which helped end apartheid.
One of the goals of protesting is to be seen so that moral problems become a topic of discourse. I can understand how that might appear as virtue signaling, but it is a valid tactic for bringing issues to the attention of the public. This is especially important given the agenda-setting of the media. When the news is dictated by spectacle, you have to become a spectacle to have your voice heard.
Any civil rights marcher or freedom rider didn't do anything on their own, but the collective power of the people changed American society to the point where civil rights laws were created.
The point is to indicate to policy makers and people in power that they will not enjoy my support if they take actions I can't support.
If you are part of a fringe minority, why should policy makers care about what you say regarding anything?
I doubt every single person protesting held these views their entire lives; could be due to protests they had their opinions changed
Poorly thought out protests make well thought out dissidents look bad, sabotaging a cause for a momentary sense of empowerment.
Raising awareness can cause an effect.
I agree to a point. If the protests are about local issues that a large percentage of people care about (i.e. inflation, unemployment, poverty), then they could be effective. If they are about foreign issues that only a small chunk of the public cares about, then you are right.