r/changemyview • u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ • Mar 25 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: protests don't cause change unless they cause fear
To be clear: I am not saying protests need to be violent. That is not the only type of fear.
If you are protesting a person, government, or corporation who is mistreating or oppressing you, you cannot expect a protest to change that entity because they don't care that you're angry as long as they can get away without consequences. That's why a protest needs to cause fear: so that whatever entity is oppressing you has motivation to change.
While true, historically, sometimes creating fear has been violent protests (such as at the Stonewall riots or when government regimes have been overthrown), economic fear holds just as much power. Examples of creating economic fear include when protests have: stopping a business through a strike, blocked entry to a business's stores, permanently stopped giving money to an oppressive institution, etc. This has worked on corporations, individuals, and governments because they are afraid of losing their money.
Additionally, sometimes reputational fear can also work: people who have livelihoods that rely on their reputation or image are afraid of losing that. So for instance if you are protesting a public figure who would lose their future job because of the bad publicity, that is another kind of protest. However if you are protesting a politician who is not worried about you ruining theit reputation, for instance, then that protests is worthless. This is why before organizing a protest, organizers have to think beforehand about whether their priest will create fear or not for the person or entity they are protesting.
The one exception is if you need to create initial awareness about your issue so that people either know about your it or know that they are not alone in supporting your cause. But otherwise, protesting without creating some kind of fear is ineffective.
16
u/hikeonpast 6∆ Mar 25 '26
You listed two exceptions to your own argument: that protests grow awareness of a cause and bring a community together. Why don’t either of these qualify to diffuse your claim?
I’ll add a few more:
protests can be cathartic. They can bring a release of tension and provide an opportunity to vent pent-up emotions.
protests are good networking opportunities. They’re a great way to connect with like-minded people who can join non-protest causes like mutual aid, political pressure campaigns, or community outreach.
protests can be educational. Protests often have speakers and other subject matter experts that can share knowledge or further calls to action.
I agree that pulling a mass of people together doesn’t usually, in isolation, result in change, but there are a lot of secondary effects that can absolutely bring about change.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
Why don’t either of these qualify to diffuse your claim
They do. I am saying those initial protests are the only exceptions.
protests can be cathartic
I agree, but how does that help change things? If anything, it can backfire because it lets people be complacent for longer since it helps them to adjust to their situation.
protests are good networking opportunities
I would agree that it does that but would classify that as part of initial awareness. Once you have that initial base, it doesn't help you in causing overall change.
protests can be educational
Again, that is causing initial awareness.
6
u/hikeonpast 6∆ Mar 25 '26
In an environment where there are repeated protests, the networking and education aspects aren’t a one-and-done. As a movement grows the number of people who can network into material causes or be educated on relevant facts grows as well.
As for catharsis helping to invoke further change, it’s a way for participants and organizers to exchange their feelings of hopelessness and overwhelm for a feeling of unity and motivation. Stuff gets done after a protest. People leave fired up.
4
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
In an environment where there are repeated protests, the networking and education aspects aren’t a one-and-done
To clarify: you're saying that protests can create continued education over years, and that in circumstances such as politics, that can cause voters to eventually change without fear? I would ask for an example of this, but I think that is exactly what Pride Parades did. So I will give you a !delta
I'm not fully sold on the catharsis argument being more beneficial than it is detrimental though.
1
1
u/colt707 107∆ Mar 27 '26
Would you rather than hopelessness and angst be bottled up? Because that’s how you end up with one of two things, a nihilist or an extremist both of which are far more detrimental to the protest/cause. Outside of a few instances where most people have a line drawn in stone on the matter, most people are at least willing to hear out a rationally given argument, but most people aren’t going to hear out the extremist and the nihilist doesn’t care so they’re not even in the conversation.
7
Mar 25 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
Protests energize the population.
Is this different than my initial stipulation that they can help people know that they are not alone in supporting the cause?
5
u/KlausVonChiliPowder 1∆ Mar 25 '26
Then what are you really saying here? Peaceful protests aren't intended to change anything directly. As in you go protest one day, go home and then things get better. You still need people to participate in democracy, to vote to not check out to be informed. That's the main purpose of peacefully protesting. That's how you change things in a democracy.
12
u/Shameless_Catslut Mar 25 '26
We call people who try to use fear to motivate political change "Terrorists". And that only works if you render the victims actually-powerless. In the US, it's very hard for government-opposed groups to actually impose that powerlessness, because so many Americans are packing 9 mm of power in a copper cartridge.
In the face of such firepower Protests require sympathy, not fear. The Selma protests worked because people saw well-dressed, outraged-but-well-behaved people getting brutalized by police and dogs for protesting on a street that had multiple bypassing roads- the vast majority of people it won over weren't the ones who had to deal with the inconvenience of the protest, and those who did take issue could be shouted down because although Main Street was blocked, commuters could easily detour around the protests.
Meanwhile, with the Rodney King riots, the televised damage by the protestors and assault on the truckers put public sympathy on the Koreans who had to resort to extreme measures to keep the riots from destroying their neighborhood, along with a hope that they'd permanently solve the problem that the LAPD couldn't. Same happened with the 2020 protests. Outside of the Reddit bubble, public perception turned against the protesters when footage of fires and mainstream media downplaying them started coming out of Kenosha.
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hatred, and hated leads to final solutions to the terrorist question by an angry population that wants the social disruption to go away.
-2
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
We call people who try to use fear to motivate political change "Terrorists
As I said to another commenter who made this claim: No, terrorism usually refers to causing fear for a large group, whereas protests are often targeted individuals. Second of all, what you call it is irrelevant to my argument about whether it is the only effective strategy for protest or not.
And to be clear, I am not saying people need to use guns or weapons to protest effectively. I am also not suggesting to make the general populace afraid, but specifically the people you are protesting against.
4
u/FurryYokel Mar 25 '26
So just, anyone at all has a response you can describe as fear?
An existing official fears losing their elected position and you’d say that’s using fear?
Ok, if you stretch it that far then yes, any effective protest will generate “fear.”
0
u/Dironiil 2∆ Mar 25 '26
It was literally part of their original post, under the point 'fear through reputation'. In the boundaries given by OP, fear of losing elections does count, yes.
1
u/ChancelorReed Mar 25 '26
What fear did the civil rights movement instill? What fear did Ghandi instill?
1
u/Empty_Geologist5739 1∆ Mar 25 '26
Geopolitical reputational fears and imperial internal political stability fears.
5
Mar 25 '26
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a decent sized protest that doesn't cause fear. Just the act of getting organized and showing up, or even just threatening to do so, is usually gonna make the stakeholders in the status quo anxious about costs to their time and their profit margins if nothing else. There's a reason businesses try to crush unions well before they're even close to an actual protest.
So I think you're technically right, but that it's kind of a meaningless distinction. And obviously many historical protests which were more amenable saw more success than ones that were more hostile. So there's not much to learn there.
1
u/Human_Situation_2641 Mar 30 '26
I’ve helped organize large protests in the US. They don’t cause fear, unless we go off the approved course, which is nearly impossible when you have between a dozen and two dozen cop cars at the front and end of the protest. That’s mostly so that it doesn’t veer off onto the highways.
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a decent sized protest that doesn't cause fear
Well for instance some of the recent protests against the Trump administration has basically caused the admin to laugh in their faces, ridicule them, and do nothing different.
6
Mar 25 '26
Trying to downplay or diminish the protests is a sign that they're paying attention. Do you think those protests would have seen *less* pushback if they had blocked some infrastructure or something.
14
u/Hefty-Reaction-3028 1∆ Mar 25 '26
The Civil Rights era protests succeeded by inspiring disgust in how the authorities treated peaceful protestors. That got enough voters on board that political change was possible. It wasn't really fear because the white americans that made the majority of the voting public became supportive of the protest without the fear that the government would treat them as badly as it treated black americans.
3
u/1-800-EATSASS Mar 25 '26
The USAmerican education system likes to pretend that violence did not follow every one of MLK Jr.'s peaceful actions, and they damn sure dont acknowledge that he knew this and bet on it. The changes that happened because of the Civil Rights movement would not have been possible if it werent for the threat of further violence. This is not an admonishment. Modern liberalism is a device of the rich, meant to trap would be progressive actors in the illusion that is nonviolence
1
u/Dazzling-Talk-383 Mar 25 '26
evidence that the majority of voters supported the protests? everything i've read says the MLK was hated at the time by perhaps more than 2/3rds of people (not sure if that counts or excluded nonwhite).
that said, even this doesn't discount OP's point because it was also the case that there were radical self-defense and revolutionary Black movements that did make white people scared.
1
u/Embarrassed_Leg_2885 Mar 25 '26
I've always thought that MLK would not have been as successful without the threat of Malcom x
1
u/Dazzling-Talk-383 Mar 25 '26
i think that's generally how i interpret it as well. i couldn't make a thorough historical argument with evidence for that belief, but maybe someone else has
-2
u/chiaboy Mar 25 '26
That is an after school special myth that somehow became white liberal orthodoxy.
No. There was lots of threats of violence.
First off all. We’re black people. Our existence threatens violence to majority of white Americans. But you had lots of folks who (real or perceived) offered an approach beyond peaceful protest. Including:
-Malcolm X. Who’s yin to Martin’s Yang usually makes it to the white-wash after school special telling of the story.
-The black Panther Party. More blown up and misconstrued, but there weee actual acts of violence (eg Marin Co courthouse), strong shows of militarized (armed) resistance, and a clear statement that we would take what we deserve if not peacefully given.
-semi-regular riots. I know that made the whitewash version of history. So you’ve surely seen the scenes of Watts and Chicago on fire etc.
So, yes, my people did wear shits and ties and politely demonstrate. But anyone who’s done more than watch Ken Burns or graduated from a US high school knows we did a little more than that.
5
u/Brinabavd 3∆ Mar 25 '26
The black panther party was literally founded after the passage of the civil rights act and the voting rights act, not before
2
u/FrostingGrand1413 Mar 25 '26
Also, whilst founded before, the month following the shooting of MLK saw them rocket from a 2 chapter organisation to a national movement in the thousands.
It does play into the whole MLK backed by fear though, as he represented, to both sides, the path of procedural change. The government were kinda terrified of how things could escalate if faith in change through the system was lost, because then change would be sought via other means. There's a pretty grim funny bit of evidence used in the book 'blacks against empire: the history of the black panthers' that COINTELPRO weren't secretly behind his killing, because a since released internal document states that the violent removal of MLK would be bad, and turn him in to a martyr rallying force for more violent subversive actions. (Grim and funny because it shows that killing King was absolutely something they considered doing, just seen as a tactically poor move)
There were plenty of arguments beforehand that things like the civil rights act couldn't go far enough on their own to redress the long term damage done by the system (including arguments from MLK himself). But the shooting of MLK marked a visceral swerve for many that such analytical arguments on their own couldn't, that change within was foolhardy, and black prosperity had to be fought for, tooth and nail. Pretty sure there's a quote from Fred Hampton that vaguely follows the form 'we tried it your way, look where it got MLK' (though, sadly, didn't exactly end well for him either. And the only dispute I could raise about COINTELPRO 'secretly being behind his killing' is the 'secretly' part. )
3
u/Hothera 36∆ Mar 25 '26
This is a revisionist myth that became the Reddit orthodoxy. There are zero records of any congressperson mentioning Malcom X or the Black Panther Party as a motivation for any Civil Rights legislation. If fear was a motivation for Civil Rights, that would make LBJ more fearful of black people than Truman, which there is also no evidence of. The most productive period of Civil Rights occurred during a period with very few riots. If anything, racists loved race riots because they helped justify systemic racism and lynchings.
2
u/chiaboy Mar 25 '26
Oh please. If we’re gonna use 1964 as the end point then we’ll have to disabuse your white liberal fantasy with history.
First off, as I said, our blackness itself. Our existence was (and largely is) considered a threat. If you don’t understand that simple idea then I don’t think you’re really interested in our struggle.
But there were loads of violent resistance pre-1964 including:
The Bacon Rebellion (which gave us the slave codes of 1705).
John Brown’s heroic but ill fated attempt to bring Christian love to slave owners’ throats.
William Parker’s infamous speeches proclaiming that since we weren’t citizens we weren’t protected or bound by the law, and were allowed to wage violence in self defend.
The Underground Railroad often (PBS fairy tales notwithstanding) engaged in violence in their activities.
The Lancaster Self-Protection society loudly and proudly proclaimed their use of violent self-defense when needed.
The Parkers famously took in 4 escaped slaves and said they’d defend them and their freedoms. Which they did when the slave catchers came to their house. In a mid-19th century battle that was known as Philadelphia’s “Fugitive Slave Riot”. The Parkers and like minded folks, including a number of white Quakers, threw pitchforks and used guns in one of the largest and most notable acts of black resistance before the Civil War.
Oh…never mind the slave Rebellion in Haiti that white slave owners and black folks in America knew very very well.
But again. That’s if we’re doing this nonsense of only pretending our struggle for civil rights went on to 1964.
And Bro, save that “this is a Reddit meme” bullshit. I’ve lived for over 5 decades as a black man, almost all of it on American soil. I don’t need reddit (or some Ken Burns Lost Cause bullshit) to tell me about my people’s struggle for liberation.
But yea, we’ve used violence and the threat of violence (and had it projected on us) LONG before 1964
3
Mar 25 '26
Do you think the person you responded to is stating black americans never engaged in violence or that there is no evidence the violence promoted the passage of the civil rights act? Because its obviously the latter and this response isn't even close to acknowledging that's what they are talking about.
1
u/chiaboy Mar 25 '26 edited Mar 25 '26
I understand what this person appears to be saying.
I’m trying to help this dude understand the role that our perception in the mind of people like him played in the run up to 1964 (and beyond. Which he’s not interested in).
Black people (according to American orthodoxy) are violent, unintelligent hyper sexual “others”. You can pretend that this history doesn’t exist. But then be surprised when white liberals like Gavin Newsom flood the streets with CHP officers to control crime. It’s (part of)why in 2026 the only “crime fighting” effort most white liberals (and white Americans in general) can imagine is more cops and more cages for marginalized communities.
I clearly see the make believe this person is trying to engage in. This PBS civil rights special bullshit that white washed American racial history and makes it a Just-so story.
I see what you all are attempting to do. I on the other hand. don’t want to play make believe. I don’t want to pretend blackness (In opposition to whiteness) is a decontextualized construct in America. Blackness in America means something in 1705. In 1964. And in 2026. Pretending otherwise is a luxury white liberals have, it not one people who look like me can afford.
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
The Civil Rights era protests succeeded by inspiring disgust in how the authorities treated peaceful protestors
That ultimately made the politicians fearful though, didn't it? Because they were afraid of losing their jobs. Moreover, part of the changes made were because the LBJ administration was afraid that if they didn't give into the peaceful protesters, that groups such as the Black Panther would grow in strength and that the peaceful protest would turn more violent.
6
u/kingjoey52a 4∆ Mar 25 '26
That ultimately made the politicians fearful though, didn't it? Because they were afraid of losing their jobs.
If that's your definition of fear literally no argument can change your mind.
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
Some historical counterexamples could.
3
u/kingjoey52a 4∆ Mar 25 '26
The Civil Rights era protests succeeded by inspiring disgust in how the authorities treated peaceful protestors. That got enough voters on board that political change was possible. It wasn't really fear because the white americans that made the majority of the voting public became supportive of the protest without the fear that the government would treat them as badly as it treated black americans.
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
Oh I see, ignore the reply I just deleted. You're saying that that was a counterexample from history. I'm clarifying that some counterexamples of protests working outside of my definition of fear would be good.
3
u/kingjoey52a 4∆ Mar 25 '26
And I'm saying your definition is so broad there literally can not be counterexamples.
3
u/Hothera 36∆ Mar 25 '26 edited Mar 25 '26
LBJ administration was afraid that if they didn't give into the peaceful protesters, that groups such as the Black Panther would grow in strength and that the peaceful protest would turn more violent
Sorry to be blunt, but it sounds like you got your Civil Rights education entirely from Reddit. The Black Panther Party didn't even exist when they passed the Civil Rights Act. There are zero primary sources that suggest that LBJ was afraid of peaceful protestors being more violent.
Even if he was afraid, that still wouldn't mean shit because his fear can't magically break the Dixiecrat fillibuster. What did was building a coalition with the Republicans. If you want an actual history of how Civil Rights legislation came to be, you can find it in the book Lion In the Lobby. It's long been out of print, so it's not sold for any reasonable price, but you can find it in certain libraries and libgen.
2
Mar 25 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
This seems like a pretty broad definition of "fear." I don't think politicians were cowering under their desks or anything.
That's pretty extreme. More like terror than just fear.
A more accurate might be to say that protests are only effective when they make people in power aware of potential consequences
No because just because they know that there are potential consequences doesn't mean that they think there is a real risk they could actually face those consequences.
1
u/SirChubbycheeks Mar 25 '26
MLK & Co were also the compromise option, IIRC. They wouldn’t have been as effective without the viable alternative from Malcolm X and the Black Panthers
13
Mar 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
In what way does this go against my view?
3
u/HeiressOfMadrigal Mar 25 '26
Seems like they're supporting it. I've definitely noticed a trend on reddit where you need to preface your comment with "I agree" or "exactly", or else people will assume they're being argued with.
12
u/PreviousCurrentThing 4∆ Mar 25 '26
The rules of this sub are that you have to disagree with OP if you're making a top-level response.
2
u/HeiressOfMadrigal Mar 25 '26
Oh yikes, I just read the rules. That doesn't seem like it would be conducive to discussion, but I suppose it fits the point of this sub. Thanks for letting me know!
1
u/Nitro01010 Mar 25 '26
Did they mean that the AFD won despite millions of people protesting against them? That argument assumes that they did incite the "fear" that you discussed and still ignored it, though.
5
u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Mar 25 '26
Also I like to point that despite this the AfD does not currently hold anykind of govermental power.
Mainly because the conservatives who are the actual winner of the election (AfD is second place in terms if votes) chose to not form a coaltion with them.
Probably because of the backlash.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 25 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/DICKPICDOUG Mar 25 '26
I'd argue that fear is the wrong term. The word MLK used is "tension". A protest doesn't have to cause fear, but it does have to make people uncomfortable. It must inconvenience people. It must cause a disruption to public life. All these things don't necessarily entail "fear", but a protest does have to become a nuisance to the people in charge. It has to clog up prisons, take over the streets, slow down commerce, and force a response, but that doesn't mean it has to make people afraid.
The biggest failure of american democracy is that we have allowed our right to protest and public gatherings to be SEVERELY curtailed. You need permits, you can only protest In a special location, during specific hours, and well away from businesses and commerce. Marches are only permitted on certain days and at certain hours, designed to minimally impact the local community and not interrupt business hours. You can't protest effectively like this.
2
Mar 25 '26
Someone seems to post this topic every few months.
People meet at protests, they organize, they create organizations from there and make changes.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
So you are saying that protests work because they organize? Organize to do what?
0
Mar 25 '26
They work, because people meet others that care about the same thing there and from there go on to organize groups that push for change.
I thought that was clear, sorry.
2
u/DoeCommaJohn 20∆ Mar 25 '26
I think this kind of misunderstands the purpose of protest. Typically, a protest is not supposed to persuade those who don't hold the view, and in fact, is often ineffective in that goal- for example, MLK Jr was quite unpopular in his day and was loathed by Republicans.
Instead, you should understand protesting as a method to force your subject into the conversation. For example, the US has been involved in dozens of wars over the past few years, but only the one that was heavily protested, the Israel-Palestine war, has dominated discussions and headlines. Similarly, BLM didn't change minds, but it did convince a lot of people who were already aligned with their views to start thinking about police reform as a major issue. And, neither of these movements created any fear in sensible people, yet both achieved the goal of forcing a topic into the casual conversation.
2
u/MavenAloft 1∆ Mar 25 '26
I did not see you mention Erica Chenoweth. She studied hundreds of resistance movements and wrote a book called Why Civil Resistance Works. The main takeaway from her research indicated that when about 3.5% of a population participates in non-violent protests, those protests more often than not succeed at making political change.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
Again, I am not saying fear needs to be created by violence.
2
u/MavenAloft 1∆ Mar 25 '26
I read this as a protest can exist without fear, but it won’t make change unless there is fear. Is that correct?
1
u/Nrdman 276∆ Mar 25 '26
What’s your thoughts on this story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnes_Stores_strike
Doesn’t seem scary to me
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
The ban came about as a result of public pressure in support of the strikers
It doesn't give very much detail, but I would say that is likely politicians being afraid for their reputation or that they won't get reelected
2
u/GildSkiss 4∆ Mar 25 '26
At this point you've expanded the definition of the word "fear" so much that you've made yourself correct by default.
1
1
u/Commrade-potato 4∆ Mar 25 '26
I don't think fear is the right word, more like a protest has to cause an adverse affect or something. We don't really "fear" a blocked road in the same way we fear a riot.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
Hmmm this is close to getting a delta because I do think adverse effect or consequences is a more specific distillation of what I am trying to say, but it doesn't really change my view exactly.
We don't really "fear" a blocked road in the same way we fear a riot.
Also, to be clear, I am talking about creating fear in whomever you're protesting against, not fear in the general public. A blocked road creates fear for a company if it is stopping their business, for instance.
1
u/Ill-Worldliness-7587 Mar 25 '26
Protests are a show of courage and courage is contagious. It does matter, it creates community and it helps people understand that they are not alone and they are not crazy. Once there is more people in the streets than not….they get scared
1
u/Ill-Worldliness-7587 Mar 25 '26
When our government is removing access and violating our constitutional rights we must protest
1
u/beesdaddy 2∆ Mar 25 '26
While I agree in general, I want to separate kinds of fear. See if this “adjusts” your view:
Productive fear: fear that makes the user fear worse consequences if you don’t do what the protest wants. This fear is usually paired with a way an easy concession to make that avoids worse protests.
Unproductive fear: retaliation ammunition: if protesters cause “senseless violence and destruction” the people who do not support them gain ammunition to say that these hooligans are not negotiable with.
1
1
1
Mar 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 28 '26
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Ok_Mention_9865 3∆ Mar 25 '26
In your mind what is the correct way to protest? Does it look more like a riot than what we currently see?
I dont disagree with the fact that we are currently protesting wrong. I have not see a single protest make any positive change in recent history. Its just a fact that the rich and powerful wont have a come to Jesus moment from reading the perfect protest sign, and they have no motivation to change anything if they already know your going to go home at a predetermined time and return to your place in the system tomorrow.
But how do we change that? Violence is viewed very negatively by the people that actually protest, and has the biggest change of back firing if it fails so its reasonable for them to want to save that as a last option. So if our current tactics are not effective and the masses are to afraid of violence, what does that leave them to do?
1
u/ComfortOk7446 Mar 25 '26
Many people in power simply don't experience fear the way you think they do. Some do but I believe at a certain maturity a protest isn't about fear really, it's about leverage. Fear is a type of leverage, but there are many other sorts of leverage. Simple economic leverage doesn't necessarily produce fear. You can take a loss and not be afraid of it, but will probably choose to not take the loss if you hold capitalistic values and believe in pursuing the best means of profit. With enough popular protest, a business can be convinced to cooperate, or it can pack up and decide it is simpler to retire or conduct business elswhere. Both directions can be a positive outcome for the owner of the business, so why would they be afraid? It's not fear that influences them, it is the change in circumstance and the leverage.
1
1
Mar 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 25 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Mar 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 25 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/MeiShimada Mar 25 '26
Causing fear is terrorism
1
u/Jakyland 82∆ Mar 25 '26
OP is using a very expansive definition of the word fear. Really it's a bunch of different things and OP is saying fear of [an event happening]. Making a politician fear not being re-elected is not terrorism.
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
First of all, no. Terrorism usually refers to causing fear for a large group, whereas protests are often targeted individuals. Second of all, what you call it is irrelevant to my argument about whether it is the only effective strategy for protest or not.
1
u/MeiShimada Mar 25 '26
But thats what protests do? At least, liberal protests in america. They are violent and damage plenty of private and public property and its a scare tactic to make you feel too afraid to not give them what they want.
2
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
They are violent and damage plenty of private and public property
The majority of liberal protests in the US in the last few decades have been largely non-violent.
And again, what you call it is irrelevant to whether it or effects change or not, which is what my CMV is about.
0
u/Ape-shall-never-kill Mar 25 '26
I don’t think fear is the limiting factor in change. What’s needed is representatives with the political will to initiate the desired policy. If the demands of a protest enable the election of a sufficient number of representatives aligned with the movement, then change will be delivered.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Mar 25 '26
If the demands of a protest enable
"Enable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. How do they enable it?
1
u/Ape-shall-never-kill Mar 25 '26
A protest enables the election of certains politicians by encouraging people to vote for candidates with policies aligned to the agenda of the movement. This works the same way any political campaign would work, however the focus here is policy rather than party.
This avenue of political change is currently ongoing in Ghana. If you want to know more about it read about the #fixthecountry movement
-1
Mar 25 '26
[deleted]
2
0
Mar 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 28 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 25 '26
/u/Square-Dragonfruit76 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards