• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Protests the Most Effective Method to Bring About Change in Society?

Are Protests the Most Effective Method to Bring About Change in Society?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 6 100.0%

  • Total voters
    6

xMathFanx

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
345
Reaction score
85
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are Protests the Most Effective Method to Bring About Change in Society?

Here are articles from differing perspectives on this topic:

(A) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/is-there-any-point-to-protesting
(B) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/why-street-protests-dont-work/360264/
(C) https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/wall-street-protests
(D) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tter-these-three-factors-make-the-difference/
(E) https://hbr.org/2017/01/how-protests-become-successful-social-movements

So, do you think that formal protests in the streets, ect. are the most effective way (or effective in any way) of brining about change in society? Or, rather, would it be more efficient to end "PC" behavior and have "everyday conversations" about the issues with people that you come into social contact with, post more blogs, other writing/video formats posted online or in person, lectures/talks, ect.? Is it more that people are not challenged on their beliefs in everyday life and that doing this would be the best way to bring about change in society rather than isolated protests in streets that (although large ones receive media coverage) is more or less "preaching to the quire" or otherwise overly confrontational? Also, are street protests designed to be fundamentally emotional, illogical, and rather irrational with chanting's and mantras recited en masse? Is this a proper mechanism for which to persuade others that do not see nor agree with your perspective? Also, doesn't the risk of street protest (i.e. going to jail) seem far higher than "everyday conversation" even if those conversations may be highly uncomfortable?

Thoughts?
 
Are Protests the Most Effective Method to Bring About Change in Society?

Here are articles from differing perspectives on this topic:

(A) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/is-there-any-point-to-protesting
(B) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/why-street-protests-dont-work/360264/
(C) https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/wall-street-protests
(D) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tter-these-three-factors-make-the-difference/
(E) https://hbr.org/2017/01/how-protests-become-successful-social-movements

So, do you think that formal protests in the streets, ect. are the most effective way (or effective in any way) of brining about change in society? Or, rather, would it be more efficient to end "PC" behavior and have "everyday conversations" about the issues with people that you come into social contact with, post more blogs, other writing/video formats posted online or in person, lectures/talks, ect.? Is it more that people are not challenged on their beliefs in everyday life and that doing this would be the best way to bring about change in society rather than isolated protests in streets that (although large ones receive media coverage) is more or less "preaching to the quire" or otherwise overly confrontational? Also, are street protests designed to be fundamentally emotional, illogical, and rather irrational with chanting's and mantras recited en masse? Is this a proper mechanism for which to persuade others that do not see nor agree with your perspective? Also, doesn't the risk of street protest (i.e. going to jail) seem far higher than "everyday conversation" even if those conversations may be highly uncomfortable?

Thoughts?
Replacing your leaders is the most effective want to bring change. I don't know about you but I am not going to listen to some ********ers blocking traffic or causing the businesses I frequent to shut down.Nor am I going to listen to some **** suckers if they are rioting,looting or some other nonsense.
 
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
 
Of course it is.

Examples of street protests include the Color Revolution, Islamic Revolution, Arab Spring, etc. In regards to Iran in the late 1970s, the crowd defeated the Shah and one of the strongest militaries in the world.

Even the the simple vote in a democratic system is a form of protest. It's why people power, not autocratic power, has proven to be the most enduring in the modern age. If you want a "civil" conversation, where the vote determines change, you have to get your country to a place where society is not defined by a dictator and his closest pals or a religious elite.
 
Last edited:
If history is any indication, it is the most effective or at least one of the most effective ways. And I would say the most effective form of protest has been non-violent civil disobedience. But only when the issue is truly important, like the fight for liberty and basic human rights. Civil disobedience over trivial matters just annoys people.
 
BLM shenanigans only makes matters worse. As a result nothing gets accomplished.
 
The vote is still the best weapon. Now guided by video. Johnson didn't decide not to run again in 1968 because of the protesters; his polling showed that middle class white voters had turned against him. Live unrestricted television coverage of the war told a different story than the optimistic pronouncements from the White House. The military learned never to allow unrestricted access to video reporters ever again; hence "embedded" journalists, who can be controlled.
 
Back
Top Bottom