743
Republicans mostly silent as millions of Americans protest Trump on No Kings day
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
743 points (100.0% liked)
politics
26140 readers
3050 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not true. Nobody outside of leftist groups or media care about this. It's not out of trying to maintain fear or concern about erosion.
There's nothing that comes from these protests anymore. We're in a digital world. These analog solutions don't work anymore. You need digital solutions. You need a network and digital presence to spread anything you do like this. But we all removed ourselves from any digital spaces so there's no need for the right to prevent anything. They know this even 24hrs ago. We're all back to work. A lot of people didn't even realize this was going on.
Eight million people disagreed with you on Saturday. That's a significant fraction of the adult population.
More to the point, history disagrees with you. No fascist regime has ever survived large-scale protests by a significant percentage of their population.
In an increasingly digital world, the only thing that does work is analog solutions.
Know what happens if you email a senator? Even a state senator? You get a canned auto-reply. For a while, the workaround was faxes. I'm not kidding, that got through. But then they stopped acknowledging those, too. The only things that work anymore are analog: phone calls and showing up in their office.
This applies to almost every political action, too. Digital marketing barely moves the needle; a lot of campaigns don't even bother anymore. But door-knocking sure does. Phone banking sure does. Digital spaces are great for organizing and for dissemination of information, but the spaces are too siloed for any reasonable hope of changing anyone's mind, even before you get to the astroturfing and foreign actors.
Even better, analog action demonstrably gets under Trump's skin. And the more he shows himself to be bothered by it, the more he looks weak and impotent.
Yeah, I mean, we still have to eat. But nobody's under the illusion that one protest is going to do this; it's about the long game, about the conservatives on the ground seeing that it's not actually a "hate America" rally, and if the GOP is lying about that, what else might they be lying about?
So we'll capture a news cycle here and there. And we'll keep doing it until something changes, for better or for worse.
But a lot of people did. People who only believed the Fox talking points saw that they were wrong this weekend. And the fact that the people at the top are quiet about it means that they know they can't fight it. Which means that at least they know it could work.
Sure, we'll see.
I've said this after every major protest the past ten years. But yes, I'll say it again and again and again.
Ten years is not very much time, in protest terms. When I say "long game," I really mean it. But we're getting ever closer to critical mass. Don't get impatient.
You're not reaching critical mass because of protests. You're reaching critical mass because people are communicating and sharing content that highlights what the Trump government is doing. The protests success resr on how effectively the left has shown his corruption and not just shown but marketer the messages enough to convince people to pay attention
That's also critical! As I noted earlier, digital sources are fantastic for news dissemination but terrible for changing minds. Growing protest would not be possible without strong reporting; I don't think there's any way that either arm of this could possibly happen alone.
How is it terrible for changing minds?
If it's terrible for changing minds, why is there so much money invested into advertising using it?
Are these massive professional companies ignorant to something and like wasting billions on useless tactics?
They aren't changing minds. They're reinforcing and radicalizing the beliefs of people who are already in the bubble they're in. And it's far from useless!
Try to think back to the last time you saw an ad that was (1) actually directed at you, and (2) trying to change your mind. I can't tell you the answer for me, because I never see ads like that. Harris ran her campaign on that last fall, and it failed; partially because people have been lied to through screens often enough that they tend to only believe things that screens say when they're saying stuff they already believe.
As you already know, we'll do all sorts of mental gymnastics to make new facts fit with old opinions, probably because there was some kind of evolutionary advantage. The fact is, most people have already made up their minds. Changing those minds is hard, because people have a visceral reaction to facts, ideas, and opinions that go against their pre-existing beliefs—just like what's happening to you right now. It can be stronger or weaker depending on how important the belief is, but in either case, the only time we're likely to change our minds is in person; again, probably due to some evolutionary advantage (pack bonding, maybe?). Not online, not via broadcast, but in person; usually in small groups or even one-on-one (I've seen some evidence, though I can't find a link, that voice and video calls—but not text messages—are almost as effective as in-person discussion).
Protests gain momentum when more people change their minds, and people change their minds when the people they know and trust and respect go to protests. It's not the only way that fascists are overthrown, but it is definitely the least-bloody way.
You didn't answer my question at all. Why do companies and celebrities and people who are powerful and who have access to the best and brightest minds pay so much for an online presence?
Ads work. Majority of them you don't even realize are ads. But they work. People like you on the left are so oblivious to this stuff. I don't get it. It's so obvious and you all just keep refusing to see the answers right in front of your faces.
I did. You didn't read it, apparently, but I did.
To wit:
"They aren't changing minds. They're reinforcing and radicalizing the beliefs of people who are already in the bubble they're in. And it's far from useless!"
Literally the first paragraph in my response. They're paying for ads in order to reinforce and radicalize and mobilize people to act in accordance with the advertiser's desires.
Of course they work, but they don't do what you think they're doing. They don't convince people to change their minds, they convince people to act: to buy, or vote, or be more strident in accordance with the beliefs the advertiser already knows they have.
The ads you see are carefully crafted to appeal to people who believe what you believe. That's why pro-Trump ads in red areas didn't say "here's why you shouldn't vote for Harris," they said "you already know Harris is a bad choice, and here's why you should make sure to go vote." It's a distinction so subtle that most people don't notice it and think that the ads really are trying to change their minds, but that's not how it works.
I started my career in marketing, I know how campaigns are put together. The discussions aren't about how to make a group of people believe a thing, they're about how to frame the conversation so that the people who already believe something act on that belief in a way that benefits the advertiser. So you get ads like, "you care about your dog, so make sure you feed them Dogfood Xyz." You don't get ads that say "here's why you should care about your dog," because the people who already care about their dog don't need to be convinced, and the people who don't have a dog won't listen anyway.
How do you get people to care about a dog? You take them to a humane society shelter in person and introduce them to a dog.
Paternalistic nonsense. Oh wise and great guru, please bestow upon me thy wisdom.
Also, bringing my political affiliation into this is laughable. I knew all of this back when I was an angry conservative, too. And what changed my mind to make me more progressive? Meeting people who weren't like me.
The conservative urge to say "the truth is right in front of your face, stupid sheeple!" "Oh, this thing that I believe and have had reinforced to me by people who directly benefit financially from that belief is actually really obvious, duh!"
If it's so obvious, then surely you have evidence for me. Right? No? All the evidence is in my favor? Huh, how 'bout that. See, you can't convince people of reality online. Exhibit A: this conversation.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/11/advertising-industry-fuelling-climate-disaster-consumption
So not sure what your experience is in marketing but in my experience and from research I've looked into, it isn't just convincing people what they already know. It works to change views through repetitive messaging.
So to sum up. I think you're wrong. I think the left is wrong because they feel like you do and are really missing something that the right have accepted for a long time. They're playing chess and the left don't even understand they're even playing a game.
Thanks for posting a link! I'll take a look. Hope you'll take a look at mine.