Hate to break it to ya, but marching in the streets won’t solve this. More drastic measures would have to take place, and frankly I don’t see that happening.
If SC tries to hand the country over to a lying fascist insurrectionist there will be drastic measures. If they don’t respect the rule of law then that’s the breaking point where we stop respecting their laws. Biden has insane immunity coverage courtesy of the SC so we can start with some “official acts” of removal and see how all this plays out.
I like to think so, but I honestly think people would maybe protest a bit but then everyone would go back to work and shrug their shoulders. I’d love to be wrong though.
On the contrary a massive number of people on the streets is the only way we’ve seen effective change in the past couple decades. Violence has led to protracted conflicts with a low rate of success.
Or in 2000 when 750K joined the Million Moms March and stopped gun violence. Or in 2004 when 1.2 million marched to protect abortion rights and 2017 when 500K joined the Pussyhat Protests and prevented Roe v. Wade from being overturned. Or in 2014 when 300K joined the People’s Climate Match and stopped climate change.
Yep, walking around with signs has truly been the only way “effective change” has happened in “the last two decades.”
You need to start adding a zero to get numbers that change things. The abortion rights marches have absolutely changed stuff. The Republicans refuse to admit they ever had anything to do with getting rid of abortion and abortion rights have won in all 7 states that already voted on it. Now they’re on the ballot in 11 states for November.
When you get enough people, and it’s not some nebulous idea like gun violence, stuff actually happens.
Those weren’t enough people and you can’t protest an idea the way occupy protested greed. It just didn’t work. When you look at the pictures of places that have done this they have completely filled the streets, to the point there is no controlling the crowd.
Filling a park or a “free speech zone” isn’t going to do it.
Yeah, little known fact that the dudes in Boston accomplished so much through non violence, that the American revolution was actually just for the sport of it. Kinda like pro wrestling.
Yanukovych fled because people started raiding armories and shooting at Berkut. In Egypt the army sided with the protestors. Don’t know Tunisia and Algeria off the dome but I doubt there was no violence or threat of imminent violence
That’s what so many people in this thread are missing. Without a visible critical mass of people showing support they’re going to be dismissed as a small group of armed dissidents and everyone will stay home and cheer when we kill the terrorists.
With that critical mass of support the “government” would be forced to either abdicate or deploy force in the most immoral manner possible. Against an overwhelming show of support. Which swings it all the other way. This is why dictators shut down the Internet during protests.
So they may still get what is clearly their wish. But for the good of the country it needs to be done the right way if Trump steals the election.
They don’t have any, they just know you’re supposed to say “take to the streets” because they think they’re a 1960s radical rehearsing boomer protest tactics. As though things might not have changed in the last 60 years.
Counter-protest tactics have continuously adapted and evolved – from technology to legislation to media manipulation. Protest tactics have not kept pace, evidenced by the fact that this person thinks street protests have created effective change in the last 20 years.
If you follow the thread here, this is in a US context (the “we” referenced by the commenter), and it’s about “non-violent” protests, given the commenter said violent protests have been “protracted” with “low rates of success.” Euromaidan activists seized the government quarter by force and stormed Yanukovych’s mansion.
While I take your point, this isn’t a particularly illustrative example in this context.
No this is exactly what it looks like. They filled the streets and they didn’t go into his mansion until he fled after the Army turned on him for using lethal force against the crowd.
Just like the water hoses and dogs picture was very resonant in the US. The 1964 civil rights act was passed the next year after that photo went viral.
Hate to break it to ya, but marching in the streets won’t solve this. More drastic measures would have to take place, and frankly I don’t see that happening.
If SC tries to hand the country over to a lying fascist insurrectionist there will be drastic measures. If they don’t respect the rule of law then that’s the breaking point where we stop respecting their laws. Biden has insane immunity coverage courtesy of the SC so we can start with some “official acts” of removal and see how all this plays out.
LARP. Sounds amazing, really. But they stopped respecting the law long ago and nobody has done or will do jack shit about it.
I like to think so, but I honestly think people would maybe protest a bit but then everyone would go back to work and shrug their shoulders. I’d love to be wrong though.
On the contrary a massive number of people on the streets is the only way we’ve seen effective change in the past couple decades. Violence has led to protracted conflicts with a low rate of success.
deleted by creator
Or in 2000 when 750K joined the Million Moms March and stopped gun violence. Or in 2004 when 1.2 million marched to protect abortion rights and 2017 when 500K joined the Pussyhat Protests and prevented Roe v. Wade from being overturned. Or in 2014 when 300K joined the People’s Climate Match and stopped climate change.
Yep, walking around with signs has truly been the only way “effective change” has happened in “the last two decades.”
You need to start adding a zero to get numbers that change things. The abortion rights marches have absolutely changed stuff. The Republicans refuse to admit they ever had anything to do with getting rid of abortion and abortion rights have won in all 7 states that already voted on it. Now they’re on the ballot in 11 states for November.
When you get enough people, and it’s not some nebulous idea like gun violence, stuff actually happens.
Yeah, all we need is an organized, non-violent ten-million person march, then we can change things! 🙄
Yeah, just miss that order of magnitude in the middle there.
So 1.2M needs a zero, but 10M is an order of magnitude too high? Ok. 🤣
Oh yeah 3/4 examples are below a million. So it must be that one high outlier, that’s also actually working.
deleted by creator
No
Those weren’t enough people and you can’t protest an idea the way occupy protested greed. It just didn’t work. When you look at the pictures of places that have done this they have completely filled the streets, to the point there is no controlling the crowd.
Filling a park or a “free speech zone” isn’t going to do it.
Examples, please
Ukraine is probably the most recent example. Russia invaded them but before that they threw their president out purely with people in the street.
In Egypt they caused a change of governance that wasn’t a total improvement but was an improvement.
In Tunisia and Algeria they got favorable changes in government.
Now do the US
1964 civil rights act
Suffragette movement
Prohibition
The original crowd in Boston that started our country
Yeah, little known fact that the dudes in Boston accomplished so much through non violence, that the American revolution was actually just for the sport of it. Kinda like pro wrestling.
Look at you professionally missing the point.
Yanukovych fled because people started raiding armories and shooting at Berkut. In Egypt the army sided with the protestors. Don’t know Tunisia and Algeria off the dome but I doubt there was no violence or threat of imminent violence
Once you have enough people that is the threat.
That’s what so many people in this thread are missing. Without a visible critical mass of people showing support they’re going to be dismissed as a small group of armed dissidents and everyone will stay home and cheer when we kill the terrorists.
With that critical mass of support the “government” would be forced to either abdicate or deploy force in the most immoral manner possible. Against an overwhelming show of support. Which swings it all the other way. This is why dictators shut down the Internet during protests.
So they may still get what is clearly their wish. But for the good of the country it needs to be done the right way if Trump steals the election.
They don’t have any, they just know you’re supposed to say “take to the streets” because they think they’re a 1960s radical rehearsing boomer protest tactics. As though things might not have changed in the last 60 years.
Counter-protest tactics have continuously adapted and evolved – from technology to legislation to media manipulation. Protest tactics have not kept pace, evidenced by the fact that this person thinks street protests have created effective change in the last 20 years.
Buddy, I just fucking woke up. This isn’t a voice conversation.
Well, there’s this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Overview
If you follow the thread here, this is in a US context (the “we” referenced by the commenter), and it’s about “non-violent” protests, given the commenter said violent protests have been “protracted” with “low rates of success.” Euromaidan activists seized the government quarter by force and stormed Yanukovych’s mansion.
While I take your point, this isn’t a particularly illustrative example in this context.
No this is exactly what it looks like. They filled the streets and they didn’t go into his mansion until he fled after the Army turned on him for using lethal force against the crowd.
Just like the water hoses and dogs picture was very resonant in the US. The 1964 civil rights act was passed the next year after that photo went viral.
Yes, as I mentioned, 60 years ago.
There have been plenty of more modern examples given as well. At this point you’re just willingly ignoring them