[aspenmayer]

Looting proves that protest is amorphous, not black and white, and protest will autonomously raise the stakes when the risks associated with mass public social action is considered low, or the frequency between social progress payouts is too high, or the demand for social progress reaches a tipping point.

[devin]

You should state this in a simpler way. As it reads, it sounds like absolute trash, but I get what you're trying to say.

[aspenmayer]

I have seen your comments in this thread and trust you to reword it in a less convoluted way if you choose. I agree that my syntactic construction was rather tortured.

My main point is protest is what protest does: force the issue. The methods of protest are varied and of disproportionate impact to society. If protest is to succeed, social impact must be calibrated to the received response to protester demands. If no response or negative response is received, increase social impact to belligerent parties and the general public, if necessary. Protest without corresponding social impact is ineffectual at forcing the issue but can be effective in virtue-signaling, which can create a virtuous loop of increasing awareness and support, and increasing numbers of protesters.