Are civil protests effective?

[blitzk]

There have been many memorable civil protests/revolts during our time; some against the government, an institution, new regulations, crime, taxes, etc.

Some recent examples that come to mind are:

• Occupy Wall street
• Brazilian protest vs the world cup/Olympic games
• Anonymus vs Scientology worldwide
• People of Venezuela vs Hugo Chavez (and now vs President Maduro)

So, do these kind of protests actually work? I mean, I'm sure there have been a few that have made a difference, but historically, how effective are civil protests?

I'm not against them by any means, but my perception is that the huge majority don't accomplish their objective and at the end of the day most of them do not transcend.
But it seems as if we see more and more civil movements to the point that it feels as it is becoming a trend and even perceived as "cool" being an [pseudo] activist.

Spoiler

Wiki on the Guy Fawkes mask:
According to Time in 2011, the protesters' adoption of the mask had led to it becoming the top-selling item on Amazon.com, selling hundreds of thousands a year.

 

[bowened]

It's interesting to see how ineffective such movements can be.

Recently, there was the Chick Fillet controversy (which was more of a boycott than a protest). People boycotted them after it was discovered that proceeds from chicken sandwiches had been donated to the fight against gay people being able to marry. This of course rallied the troops who don't want gay people to get married and they bought record amounts diabetes-inducing fast food garbage to put in their bodies as a sign of solidarity. 'Merica. LOL.


Sorry. /rant.

 

[7437]

They need a huge number of people to be effective, which is why they generally fail. Something like the civil rights movement in the 60s. Widespread support, effective media and publicity, things like that.

 

[Scrody]

It depends

 

[Canned Tuna]

if the civil protests can get enough of the general population behind them, yes.

if the general population looks at the protestors and thinks, "look at these fucking idiots." then no.

the squeaky wheel gets the grease. if they get support from the general populace, they generally get what they want. I think a lot of it just depends on how many people can identify with the cause. Protesting gets people's attention, but if people think your cause is stupid then they aren't going to get behind it.

 

[IDL]

Movements can not be successful without media support. Any movement that is against the best interests of the wealthy, will be spun off into nowhere.

If one succeeds for whatever reason, you know it will have been backed by powerful people.

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

Only if they make it clear that their next option could potentially lead to violence which is why the Civil Rights movement was finally taken seriously. Occupy Wallstreet? No, nobody is afraid of thousands of unarmed hipsters, but 100 people showing up with guns and the government backs down in Nevada- do the math.

 

[IDL]

Only if they make it clear that their next option could potentially lead to violence which is why the Civil Rights movement was finally taken seriously. Occupy Wallstreet? No, nobody is afraid of thousands of unarmed hipsters, but 100 people showing up with guns and the government backs down in Nevada- do the math.

We will see what the governments next move will be in regards to the BLM. They will probably regroup.

It does seem that governments will back down when seriously confronted. There have been plenty of native protests that have been quite serious although I don't know the final outcome.

 

[HomerThompson]

Movements can not be successful without media support. Any movement that is against the best interests of the wealthy, will be spun off into nowhere.

If one succeeds for whatever reason, you know it will have been backed by powerful people.

Ghandi says hello.

 

[IDL]

Ghandi says hello.

Does that still work in this day and age?

I am not familiar enough with what he did to know how he got his message out to the masses.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Only if they make it clear that their next option could potentially lead to violence which is why the Civil Rights movement was finally taken seriously. Occupy Wallstreet? No, nobody is afraid of thousands of unarmed hipsters, but 100 people showing up with guns and the government backs down in Nevada- do the math.

That totally worked for the Waco folks. The tards with guns in Nevada were not worth the bullets to be shot at them or the bad press. Don't mistake that for fear.

I don't think they work in that there aren't any issues that brings out widespread passion within the nation. It would take something very seriously and clearly impacting a large amount of people for any kind of protest to work. The closest we had to that was the Civil Rights Movement quite awhile ago.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Only if they make it clear that their next option could potentially lead to violence which is why the Civil Rights movement was finally taken seriously. Occupy Wallstreet? No, nobody is afraid of thousands of unarmed hipsters, but 100 people showing up with guns and the government backs down in Nevada- do the math.

LOL wouldn't that kind of defeat the point of it being a civil protest? Or is it only civil until you don't get what you want and then it gets real uncivilised, real quick?

 

[nhbbear]

For any cause to succeed, it needs 3 things: a clear and attainable goal/cause; media & public support; and public awareness-a great slogan is optional.

Violence is not necessary, and while it is the quickest and most surefire way to get media coverage, it will turn the public against the cause. Those who claim that violence is the only way are usually the type that are looking for some way to justify violence, whether it further advances the cause or not.

 

[blitzk]

For any cause to succeed, it needs 3 things: a clear and attainable goal/cause; media & public support; and public awareness-a great slogan is optional.

Violence is not necessary, and while it is the quickest and most surefire way to get media coverage, it will turn the public against the cause. Those who claim that violence is the only way are usually the type that are looking for some way to justify violence, whether it further advances the cause or not.

Good post.

 

[mantronix]

Being civil will not work. All that gets you today is ridicule in the media and mace from the police. There would have to be threat of violence and a willingness to follow through. Problem is people aren't going to "burn this motherfucker down" over minor trespasses.

What kind of shit are you wanting to protest?

 

[nhbbear]

I see the 1776! Crowd is here throwing support to Waco 2014. Remember Cliven Ridge!

 

[IDL]

Being civil will not work. All that gets you today is ridicule in the media and mace from the police. There would have to be threat of violence and a willingness to follow through. Problem is people aren't going to "burn this motherfucker down" over minor trespasses.

What kind of shit are you wanting to protest?

the Occupy Wallstreet was a good example of that.

Really it should be a cause that everyone could relate to and stand behind. It did raise awareness a bit, but it didn't change the system.

Although I suppose since there wasn't a clear objective it's hard to gauge success. I'm assuming they were going for something more.

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

Dumbasses in here still don't know that Waco wasn't a protest, it was a siege.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Dumbasses in here still don't know that Waco wasn't a protest, it was a siege.

Well you can play semantics to dodge the point which is a small group of armed people would get destroyed by the government. A violent protest would end terribly for those participating.