Welll… It’s honestly not that big. The entire turnout across the States was not that big. The two anti Brexit protests in London had about 1.5 million participants and Britain has a much smaller population. Most Americans don’t seem to care.
Do you think the photo you’re seeing is the entirity of this protest? I think you don’t actually grasp the size of the US.
This is a small turnout, relatively speaking (this one was “cancelled” so I imagine it would have even had more). I went to one in a pretty centrist-right leaning town (Much much smaller than Minneapolis… Like hundreds of times smaller), and our turnout was about the same as this photo.
Go look at the turnout for Philadelphia.
I haven’t seen any nationwide estimates yet, but I can pretty much guarantee that it was at least more than 1 million people. at least
Assuming you actually give a shit and aren’t just here to sow division.
Edit: I’m now seeing figures of around 4-6 million people total, with some places estimating as many as 12 million.
It would be more incredible if those people were armed and swarming the studios of radical fascist media and beating the hell out of pro-trump talking heads.
Standing around waving signs and cheerleading shitty chants does nothing and will be forgotten in a week.
Okay then you tell me in what scenario a corrupt fascist country of blithering idiots will suddenly decide “oh wow perhaps we should be voting for positive change for all and embrace others in an spirit of patriotic and brotherly love!”?
The country has been screaming “GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!” for a hundred years or more and continually voted to allow more money in politics, and then spent even more money and passed laws to allow more money in politics and set up an entire media universe to tell everyone that only those with excessive amounts of money are good people and are the only ones who should lead government.
Often it’s the shadow of violence that is most effective. A peaceful protest, that is safe enough for families etc is perfect for snowballing. Focused action and the threat of counter violence keeps the government in check.
Too violent, and the support collapsed, letting the police simply overwhelm it. Too passive, and the whole thing can be ignored.
The Irish troubles are a good example. Protests and marches showed popular support. While the Sinn Fein party provided a political face. The IRA then made sure that proper attention was paid. All 3 were required to achieve their goals.
Yeah there are certainly logistical comparisons that could be made, but like c’mon… actually being completely and legally owned would suck so so so so much worse. Just another reminder of what’s at stake if we don’t put up a fight.
Norway leaving the union with Sweden in 1905 is famously one of the very few times secession was done non-violently. But to be fair there was large political pressure from Swedish socal democrats that urged the king not to go to war and the Sweds and Norwegians liked each other and remained good friends and allies afterwards.
Maybe if both parties start to work on the relationship and get friendly right away, then you could maybe have a peaceful resolution in 50 to 100 years time.
Youre really going to post the most controversial study there is because they cherry picked data?
Please give me one actual example of where the people toppled the government and enacted change… through non-violent protesting.
Moving the goal posts yeah yeah yeah. Give me an article or proof then of 1 single thing that caused real, permanent change, like I originally asked. Not some mass “several” article.
Absolutely not. History has shown that violence works. The Sufragettes protested peacefully for 40 years with no result whatsoever. They won because they became violent. The French revolution was a success because they resorted to violence. The American revolution was a success because they resorted to violence. Peaceful demonstrations don’t work, sorry guys.
The French revolution is a perfect example of what is wrong with violent revolution. Power vacuums attract the kind of people that will do anything for power. Not to mention the chaos and confusion that came with the actual process of revolution.
The French revolution was a success because they resorted to violence.
Are you sure it was a success? How come it seems like people immediately stopped studying French history before Napoleon comes in and tears it all down?
My city has had good turnout for a few protests in the last few months, but yesterday was the first time we took to the streets and caused a few traffic jams. I know it isn’t much, but it is an escalation. It was like scratching an itch, and I’m ready for whatever’s next.
it may be more successful short-term, like a king getting into power because of a coup. but if the king isn’t well liked, he has a difficult life. peaceful progress, on the other hand, brings lasting progress.
This is incredible.
“small protest, one of the smallest. My speeches are bigger, much biggly”
-turnip
Welll… It’s honestly not that big. The entire turnout across the States was not that big. The two anti Brexit protests in London had about 1.5 million participants and Britain has a much smaller population. Most Americans don’t seem to care.
London population: 8.8 million
Twin cities combined population: 3.6 million
London public transport: pretty damn good, connections everywhere, not an insane price
Twin cities public transport: almost non-existant, insane parking prices
London police: sometimes reasonable and lightly armed
Twin cities police: notoriously corrupt, heavily armed, use constant excessive force on civilians
Mystery solved.
The count’s are coming in but I’m seeing more than 11million people protested throughout the usa.
Do you think the photo you’re seeing is the entirity of this protest? I think you don’t actually grasp the size of the US.
This is a small turnout, relatively speaking (this one was “cancelled” so I imagine it would have even had more). I went to one in a pretty centrist-right leaning town (Much much smaller than Minneapolis… Like hundreds of times smaller), and our turnout was about the same as this photo.
Go look at the turnout for Philadelphia.
I haven’t seen any nationwide estimates yet, but I can pretty much guarantee that it was at least more than 1 million people. at least
Assuming you actually give a shit and aren’t just here to sow division.
Edit: I’m now seeing figures of around 4-6 million people total, with some places estimating as many as 12 million.
It’s the biggest protest I’ve seen in America in my lifetime. Glad to be a part of it.
There’s a little bit of a difference in the police response to protests between the two
It would be more incredible if those people were armed and swarming the studios of radical fascist media and beating the hell out of pro-trump talking heads.
Standing around waving signs and cheerleading shitty chants does nothing and will be forgotten in a week.
All this pro-violence rhetoric seems to be confusing correlation for causation.
Okay then you tell me in what scenario a corrupt fascist country of blithering idiots will suddenly decide “oh wow perhaps we should be voting for positive change for all and embrace others in an spirit of patriotic and brotherly love!”? The country has been screaming “GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!” for a hundred years or more and continually voted to allow more money in politics, and then spent even more money and passed laws to allow more money in politics and set up an entire media universe to tell everyone that only those with excessive amounts of money are good people and are the only ones who should lead government.
How is YOUR way working out?
History has overwhelmingly shown that non-violence is more successful than violence. You do you.
I don’t think that’s true. There were violent riots accompanying every major social change in at least recent history.
And famously, it took an entire fucking war to end slavery in the United States.
Often it’s the shadow of violence that is most effective. A peaceful protest, that is safe enough for families etc is perfect for snowballing. Focused action and the threat of counter violence keeps the government in check.
Too violent, and the support collapsed, letting the police simply overwhelm it. Too passive, and the whole thing can be ignored.
The Irish troubles are a good example. Protests and marches showed popular support. While the Sinn Fein party provided a political face. The IRA then made sure that proper attention was paid. All 3 were required to achieve their goals.
Now we are debt slaves instead. Success.
I’m wary to use terms like debt slavery or wage slavery because it downplays the horrors of actual slavery.
Yeah there are certainly logistical comparisons that could be made, but like c’mon… actually being completely and legally owned would suck so so so so much worse. Just another reminder of what’s at stake if we don’t put up a fight.
Well… how’s that going?
A hell of a lot better than before that’s for sure.
if you confused about slavery legality in the united states, slavery is illegal.
hope this helps you.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2020/10/how-private-prisons-profit-from-forced-labor
It’s still kinda legal, just takes some extra steps and signatures, and a bribed judge - of which there are many.
That’s also setting aside people that are effectively slaves to low wages, unable to do anything but work with no chance for upward mobility.
Well I mean, slavery is still illegal. Black people are able to vote, hold office, own property, etc.
There’s still a lot of social injustice to solve but there’s been a lot of progress, albeit slow.
The lesson is to not take your boot off of the vanquished evil.
good point.
The more I learn about history, the more I learn that violence changed things 99% of the time since before the Roman Empire.
Also after
And during
Oh by saying “since before” I meant to imply “until today” hahaha
Ah makes sense haha
Honestly “and forever” >w<
Into the exact same regime with a new color of paint?
Can you give one example where non-violence caused actual long standing change with 0 violence?
Norway leaving the union with Sweden in 1905 is famously one of the very few times secession was done non-violently. But to be fair there was large political pressure from Swedish socal democrats that urged the king not to go to war and the Sweds and Norwegians liked each other and remained good friends and allies afterwards.
Maybe if both parties start to work on the relationship and get friendly right away, then you could maybe have a peaceful resolution in 50 to 100 years time.
How about several?
Youre really going to post the most controversial study there is because they cherry picked data?
Please give me one actual example of where the people toppled the government and enacted change… through non-violent protesting.
Moving the goal posts yeah yeah yeah. Give me an article or proof then of 1 single thing that caused real, permanent change, like I originally asked. Not some mass “several” article.
No.
I won’t be sealioned.
Absolutely not. History has shown that violence works. The Sufragettes protested peacefully for 40 years with no result whatsoever. They won because they became violent. The French revolution was a success because they resorted to violence. The American revolution was a success because they resorted to violence. Peaceful demonstrations don’t work, sorry guys.
The French revolution is a perfect example of what is wrong with violent revolution. Power vacuums attract the kind of people that will do anything for power. Not to mention the chaos and confusion that came with the actual process of revolution.
Are you sure it was a success? How come it seems like people immediately stopped studying French history before Napoleon comes in and tears it all down?
Edit: Oh look its you. I see you.
No it hasnt. Power doesnt abdicate itself because you begged
Protest aren’t begging. They are a demonstration of capacity for action.
My city has had good turnout for a few protests in the last few months, but yesterday was the first time we took to the streets and caused a few traffic jams. I know it isn’t much, but it is an escalation. It was like scratching an itch, and I’m ready for whatever’s next.
Violence is far more successful, historically speaking.
it may be more successful short-term, like a king getting into power because of a coup. but if the king isn’t well liked, he has a difficult life. peaceful progress, on the other hand, brings lasting progress.
It also tends to beget more violence.
What specifically are you talking about?
This is correct.
Don’t do violence.
Think of different ways of non-violence and do them.