138

May be phrasing it wrong, but I look at actions like Labor rights, Pride, Civil Rights, Black Panthers, etc. where actions of protesters felt much intense and made more of an impact in actually changing things vs now where there are protests but it feels like it constantly falls of deaf ears.

Have we just not hit that breaking point yet? Have we collectively been beat down so hard? Or have we forgotten how to truly fight for rights? Or… am I just completely off the mark and missing something else?

all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 87 points 1 month ago

People are organizing in their communities to patrol for ICE and respond to ICE raids, which is quite a bit like the Black Panthers "cop watch" and community patrols.

I know it's not like when protesters burned down a police station in 2020, but things are happening.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It always takes time. Even when everyone knows that they would win if they just step up to the plate as one unified people.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tdIK3JFIWNI

If we all break "the rules" together, they can't get all of us

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 57 points 1 month ago

It’s probably at least partially something adjacent to survivorship bias. The most remarkable actions of the past that “survive” to the present to be retold are the ones that were most impactful.

But all of the current protests you feel are not as impactful help build a foundation for the more impactful ones.

[-] lordnikon@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

I think the the other issue is reporting of events is split into thousands of sources. Just like with media there is no longer a shared conversation between everyone. Back in the day. If Walter Cronkite talked about it everybody knew about it. But know everything is fractured into their own subcultures and to extent their own realities.

[-] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Another domain where big tech is not helping organise... They boost hatred not just for engagement and ads, but so masses don't organise against those technothieves

[-] BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The big, well reported protests were the result of decades, nay centuries, of protests.

Sit-in protests were common.

Rosa Parks was, by far, not the first Black person to be arrested for keeping her seat.

Hundreds of thousands of workers died or were hurt in preventable dangerous workplaces and labor protests.

It is hard and costly to go against the government.

[-] recently_Coco 43 points 1 month ago

"The revolution will not be televised"

It's a phrase I hear a lot in leftist spaces. Effectively, you have to be aware that publicizing these things is a great way to get them shut down.

The work is being done locally, and quietly. Advertising these events in public spaces like this one will very likely lead to them not getting off the ground due to infiltration or oppression

[-] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago

There’s a second factor at work, which is that the institutions targeted by more “extreme” actions also don’t want those actions publicized.

Consider an action like the one depicted in “How to Blow Up a Pipeline.” If they don’t have a perpetrator in cuffs, the oil company and the cops would not want to admit the action happened at all, because it makes them look vulnerable.

[-] darthelmet@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

They were successfully beaten down. More specifically, the ORGANIZATIONS were beaten down. The most successful protest movements weren’t people spontaneously showing up in the streets. They were the culmination of the efforts of community organizing. There was planning and they had people they could rely on and who relied on them. But things like unions and the Black Panthers were violently destroyed.

Now protesting is atomized like everything else. A protest that forms by posting to show up somewhere at some time on social media with signs is a collection of individuals rather than a group. If you’re just surrounded by strangers you don’t know, are you going to be able to take more radical actions?

That’s not to say none of the more serious/organized protests are happening though. There were those water protectors who tried to stop that pipeline. There were the rail worker and dockworker strikes. I don’t know how organized it was, but it was heartening to see the LA protests start out by actively protecting people being targeted by ICE. And perhaps there are more that just didn’t get any media attention. But in any case, you see how hard they try to crack down on those. But sometimes they can succeed.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Shame.

Those now in power, and Trump especially, have none. They don't even understand the concept. And it's been embraced by his hyenas.

Used to be, when the general population became aware of atrocities, and that they were committed against innocent people, they refused to continue to support those who had done wrong. Now Trump waves it in their face like a banner and they follow him

Used to be,

[-] invertedspear@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 month ago

The powers that be have no fear of ignoring protestors any more. Or education presents civil rights protests as peaceful and effective, that all we need to do is raise awareness and show solidarity and oppressors will relent. Education speaks of the black panthers, but doesn’t go into depth on how they were the armed wing of the movement.

So now today we’re protesting because we don’t like what’s happening, but what is the consequence to the power hungry? If the protests get anything approaching non peaceful, or even if they just want to, those in charge can escalate to military actions.

We also don’t have a clearly defined win condition. What is going to make things better? When do we stop? Is the goal just to raise awareness to get people to vote for a change in 1-4 years? Or are we looking for something more immediate?

Finally how far are we willing to go? If I’m not willing to die for it, or to risk my current comfortable life style, can I ever really push hard enough against current conditions? They’re willing to kill to keep their power, am I willing to kill to pry it from them?

They don’t fear us because they know we have so much more to lose than they do. We are not yet playing a game with equal stakes.

I don’t have a solution to this, so I’ll at least keep doing the peaceful thing, because it’s better than doing nothing.

[-] ThePiedPooper@discuss.online 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If we haven't hit the breaking point yet, then we never will. These protests CAN'T be civil. We need widespread civil disobedience all across the country, and especially in D.C.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 month ago

I think that part of it is that the authorities are confident that we can’t do much. In the 60’s, wide scale protest that was not a preamble to a riot was rare. In recent times, everyone expects things to go off peacefully and just come to an end at some point. This plays directly into their hands, and they are confident that we are toothless.

[-] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Someone just set off a bomb in front of a politicians office in my province. Not confirmed but fairly certain that was a protest.

Pride turned more into a celebration rather than a protest in recent years with the capitalization of it, but due to recent regression I can imagine it going back to more intense protests in some towns at least now.

Depends where you live but most of the time the government does try to keep even controversial protests pretty light with the excuse of keeping people safe, but there's always more extreme action that people take, it maybe just doesn't get shown as a "protest" per se.

[-] mapto@feddit.it 9 points 1 month ago

But should it be extreme? I reckon it should be effective instead. Whether effective means awareness, resignations or something else is a conversation that varies a lot from context to context.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Yeah, better not disturbe anyone when you are doing your awareness "protests"...

[-] ahornsirup@feddit.org 6 points 1 month ago

Those do work better. Antagonising the people whose support you rely on to effect change is a horrible strategy, the more of a disturbance protests cause to the average person, the less likely said average person is to be supportive.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago

Only this strategy has literally never worked. Your rights were secured by people who caused all kinds of disturbances. And in the first place anyone who still hasn't taken a side is a fascist in denial or will never take a side.

[-] Montagge@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

I was mad that the government was disappearing people, but then a protest made it so I couldn't drive where I wanted to.

[-] ahornsirup@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago

That's a vast oversimplification of the thought process and emotions that's going on there and an extremely uncharitable one at that (most people have their own lives to worry about, it's usually less "I can't drive where I want to" and more "I have to get to work"), but essentially yes. That's the reality you have to work with.

[-] mapto@feddit.it 1 points 1 month ago

I'd claim that it should not be about "anyone". It should be targeted. If you are to "disturb" someone, better do this intentionally and with the clear idea what such disturbance is meant to achieve.

I'm not saying you should stand still. I'm saying that you should think before (and after) you act. Wouldn't hurt too much, would it?

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago

Of course, but the metric you choose for "effectiveness" is critical. In the current situation the metric must be "removal from office".

[-] mapto@feddit.it 1 points 1 month ago

The beauty of pluralism is that it allows for different means (and metrics) of achieving a goal.

And I'm saying this as someone coming from a post-communist country where totalitarianism is the powerful position.

[-] sith@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago

Because the political and economical situation is extreme.

[-] crimsonpoodle@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago

Successful protests have clear policy objectives; also work from home and the lack of large factories that can be shut down by walk outs means that the collective bargaining is slightly weaker in places like USA.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

Decades of state propaganda. It's a lot easier for a modern Westerner to feel like the system works and just needs a nudge than it is for a worker in the interwar period or a black person in the 60s.

[-] Philote@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

A few things come to my mind on why.

  1. We aren’t fresh off of WW2 when a large portion of the planet was personally affected, extremely sensitive and aware of the impact government overreach can cause.
  2. We aren’t bored, we have all these highly refined dopamine injecting options, maybe not nefarious in nature but keeps many of us docile and complacent.
  3. Extremely effective propaganda to muddy the waters on what’s actually going on and what a united peoples opinion even is.
  4. Globalization of the money, I believe on the grand scheme, the money players are softly united behind the scenes and not backing one side or the other but playing the middle ground class war. So no big money to support a cause.
[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

The police have gotten very effective at quashing effective movements, and we've had decades of concerted effort to make it more difficult to organize and to get people to actually oppose the concept of effective resistance in their own favor.
People with power don't want people threatening to destabilize that power. People who set media narratives need access to people with power, and so they don't want to convey those destabilizing factors positively.
This makes people view them negatively, if they even see them at all.

America has never had a culling of the rich and powerful. The closest we got was when we decided to exchange a rich and powerful person far away for a few closer to home.
As such, there's no weight given to the morale of anyone who isn't rich and powerful.
Reporters, politicians and businesses people have never had to put their heads in the scale when making choices.

[-] hexonxonx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

Americans are brainwashed to believe that there's only one particular and specific way to protest, and beyond that all you can do is kill people.

They haven't yet realized that there is a huge swathe of options in between, and it requires no organization or depending on others, and no violence against anyone. You can just quietly do stuff. Probably less risky than doing anything publicly in a country with ubiquitous surveillance and the law no longer matters. Protests are great for showing the level of public support for a movement, but if the government doesn't represent the people their effect will be minimal for producing real change.

There currently is no cost for ventures into fascism. Make it so expensive they'll think twice next time (if there is a next time.)

[-] Bongles@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

You can just quietly do stuff.

Like what?

[-] LostXOR@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago

That's a nice ICE vehicle, would be a shame if its windows were smashed and its tires punctured...

It's not hard to cause a lot of inconvenience with a little effort in a nonviolent way.

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

They stormed capital hill lmao

[-] Jmsnwbrd@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

That wasn't a fucking protest. Give me a break. There's a difference between a riot, an insurrection and a protest.

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 10 points 1 month ago

That was literally a right wing protest about an election result. Protests aren't always good. All those words you used have broad overlap and generally things escalate from protest to riot to insurrection.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Coup attempts aren't protests and neither are riots and all the gaslighting in the world won't change that. That an event can change from one thing to another is meaningless to that fact.

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Gaslighting isn't real and you're fucking crazy

[-] Jmsnwbrd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Your logic is misaligned in this comment itself. In your comment you state that "generally things escalate from" and then list three different things . . . A protest, a riot, and an insurrection. This is because they are all different and your logical brain knows it. Your illogical brain uses them as an excuse for the right wing extreme behavior that occured during the god-damned insurrection. How any true patriot could be okay with what happened on the 6th is beyond me. We are supposed to be bonded as Americans. We are supposed to understand that we might not agree on everything, but we are in this together. We are supposed to agree that voting is sacred and that the results are the results.

Protest - a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.

Riot - a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.

The insurrectionists held an uprising against the government, stormed the capital, and threatened to take over and change the election results. This is fact neither born from one media outlet or another. It had witnesses and is a part of this countries history now.

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Right. So using your definitions of protest, riot and insurrection and using your statement that protests, riots and insurrections are mutually exclusive; How would you describe a situation where a crowd is demonstrating their objection to the government with a violent uprising?

Every use of language is contextual and by forcing yourself into an absolutist understanding you'll lose nuance in your interpretation.

That said. Idgaf loser keep coping

[-] Jmsnwbrd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

It's the end product that I am giving a definition. By the way, what did I "lose"? How am I a loser for caring about my young family and my country that I care about? Why is this a competition for you? I am an American who is worried about where this country is heading in many aspects of it (Dem and Republican alike). I do not belong to a single party and I vote my conscience on issues. So, I ask you again . . . What did I "lose"? I am worried about a corporate America where working class people are duped by their government officials and are losing the ability to make a living. If that makes me a "loser" than I guess we're all losers. And if you think that I am the enemy (a fellow American) then we are definitely all "losers".

[-] chunes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Really? Because it seems to me the only difference is what your preferred media decide to call it.

[-] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Your first 3 all seem to be on target to me.

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
138 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42629 readers
415 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS