No Stupid Questions

if protests did nothing, they wouldn't be forbidden in China and Russia and every other autocratic society

Only ones that can materially disrupt things.

A protest with a permit or with permission is a parade.

Sometimes. It depends on a lot of factors. Protests can convince people to change their mind, it has happened in the past and does happen on some situations these days as well. Protests can also have negative effects as well, considering things like where, when, and how a protest is carried out can either change people's minds or entrench them even more in their own opinion.

At the end of the day, the outcome of a protest is just as unpredictable as what a person will do in ten years. Or even the next hour, really.

Both the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement in the US were significantly fueled by protests. It takes more than protests, but protests can play an important part.

Farmers protested all over Europe recently and got what they wanted, which is to get rid of latest environmental regulations (that would have enforced an end of subsidies on diesel, reduction of nitrates use in fertilisers etc).

Preceding the Iraq War, there was the largest worldwide protest in history to try to stop the war from happening.

Protests are helpful at showing public sentiment, but they rarely change policy.

MLK was assassinated after he started focusing on class issues. The FBI tried to threaten him with an anonymous letter telling him to kill himself.

The Stop Cop City protestors in Atlanta are being charged with terrorism.

I think they can work, but only when certain pieces are there. The protest must have:

• A clearly defined goal
• Existing support somewhere in the government, or a financial incentive for people in the government that oppose you.

For example, civil rights and women's right to vote had some governmental support. The protests had well defined goals, and helped raise awareness and support for those people already in government to enact change.

On the other hand, the 1% protests a few years ago, and more recently, BLM, had ambiguous goals. Without clear goals, no existing government support could be identified. And there was no financial incentive for others to act. The protests raised awareness but ultimately had little real effect unfortunately.

I do wonder if things have changed though. I think public shaming helped enact some changes in the past, but no one has shame anymore.

Yes because:

1. There is a visible action taking place. You are standing for something you believe in. This gives other people who may lack confidence or opportunity something to notice.

2. Those in authority cannot claim what they do is an unopposed position.

3. Those you are protesting on behalf of, even if they are going through hell, know that someone somewhere is not prepared to let their circumstances go unnoticed.

4. Those you are protesting against know that someone sees what they are doing.

You need to use your protests as recruiting grounds for more direct pressure on your government. You should establish or join a lobbying organization and recruit volunteers. You will have these people write letters to the editor, solicit for donations, call and write to your representatives, and schedule in-person meetings with government officials.

Standing on the street and yelling by itself is not enough, you need to become a part of the establishment to affect change, but you can grow your organization by finding people who have proven to be motivated. A protest is a great place for that sort of thing.

Yes, mobilization is a strong message to government in democracy. It says we do not like the direction, we are going and we will vote you out or cause more disruption. In my town we mobilized in front of our MP's office due to the partial privatization of medcial aid. Our MP ended up changing his vote and siding against his party, as it was the will of the people. Participation in democracy is a powerful tool.

Check out France protests sometime

Just like boycotts, you need to have many many people joining and supporting the cause to actually make an impact within the world and the community, otherwise it’s not very impactful and govs could easily do any to prevent it from happening aka silencing ppl.

Though that saying, ppl shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for not doing so, if certain circumstances prevent them to do so eg disability, addiction, lack of options etc etc cuz unfortunately in the world we live in today, capitalism plays a huge part in our society today, therefore there’s is no “truly” ethical consumption in the world we are in today.

Read up on the civil rights movements or how women got the right to vote.

Protests 100% work

Some, but not all.

Just remember, if the protest is peaceful and easy to ignore then nothing will probably get done. You must disrupt the flow.

I think the best way to put it is that protests can be effective only when they present a credible threat of some sort against the people who have the power to make changes to whatever the protest is about. That threat may be direct violence, it may be electoral change, or it may be something else, but a credible threat of some sort is absolutely required.

Protesting against Israel, therefore, is of little use in most situations. The protesters pose no credible threat to Israel, so their decisions aren't going to change. And the protesters generally are not representing much of a credible threat against their own governments either, so their own governments are also not moved to change.

Absolutely, they provide the police with bodies they can beat with impunity.

No, protests can't enact policy in democratic countries. Voting can, boycotts can, and strikes can. You can organize all of the three as part of a protest, but it's a lot more work than shouting with a fancy sign, and a lot less fun to do.

Effective to the degree they have a material impact on the economy and psychological impact on the powerful and their lackeys. I would argue many of the BLM protests had an effect, if minor, because many cops quit and many cities still have fewer cops than they did before due to difficulty hiring.

Blocking commerce, looting, and arson of empty buildings have significant economic and psychological impacts. From an American perspective, successful social movements like, the suffragettes, civil rights movement, anti-slavery activists, and workers rights groups all engaged in such strategies. It wasn't until well after that these movements were sanitized to be "non-violent".

Some do, some don't. What kind of answer did you expect?

Protest toppled a couple of leaders during the Arab spring. Even with Israel, Biden has started sanctioning West bank settlers and sends veiled threats about respecting life. It is not much, but without protests, we wouldn't even see that.

Protests generally don't change policy, although politicians may use them as justification for something they already want to push through.

Only if it hurts their bottom line

Depends. If they're focused on specific demands and done at the right time combined with direct advocacy, they can do a lot to affect change.

Sometimes.

You mention the specific example of Israel which is literally the most complicated conflict in the entire world. Most people are already aware that it is happening, all the arguments on both sides of that are very well known, there is not really anything novel that can still be said about it. So protests about it (on any side) are not going to have a lot of effect.

It works when a government already sympathetic to the cause is in office

Protest movements against hostile state apparati usually have to get a bit more....intense, before they get change.

Difference between the civil rights movement and the Egyptian Arab Spring uprising

Absolutely protests change the world.

I recently looked up the history of a 1969 civil rights protest at the college I went to, and found a newspaper article tracing changes at the school right through to the current day.

A big difference is they were protesting decisions at a university. It may have been a general movement across the country but it was really a large local protest against a local entity. The protests against Israel are generally not in Israel, and even if the goal is to change one or more supporting country’s policy, the protests really aren’t that big relative to the whole country or its government.

I think the protests are still too small, given the scale at which they’re trying to influence a change

Depends who's protesting and what's the support for the protests among general population. The problem with most of the protests you see is that the people that do the protesting are the same people that oppose the government. So yeah, no government is going to react to protests done by people that don't vote for it, no matter how big. If the actual people that got the government elected protest or support the protest then they listen. Of course most of the time people know what they are voting and the government is doing exactly what it promised so they will not protest.

There have been more criticisms from governments as time has gone on - Brazil in particular has been in the news today for it.

South Africa has taken actions as well. And even if these two countries didn't do this because of protests, they help to encourage protests in other places, to help to change more minds.

You can never know exactly what a protest accomplishes, that's one of the ways they are so easy to minimize.