[diggan]

> Protest doesn't do anything.

Most rights that workers have today have been earned through protesting (and sometimes the bloody consequence of protesting while the state is resisting wanted changes). Protests only "doesn't do anything" when you don't do it enough or give up. Maybe I'm too European to understand, but the "pacifist" approach of the US working class seems to not be working out great.

[CalRobert]

Protest works when it’s backed by a threat. “Do what we want or we will remove you from power”. What we have now is “do what we want or we’ll be sad”.

The pitchforks aren’t just for show!!

And I’ve lived in Europe for over a decade now and frankly much of Europe is painfully naive about how much people in power care about protestors waving clever signs.

[marcosdumay]

Just remember, the most successful protest in recent Europe history has been when about 10% of the Iceland population showed up in front of the administration building with literal pitchforks and torches on their hands.

They immediately got what they wanted.

[CalRobert]

Even the NRA supports gun control when it's the black panthers exercising their rights.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...

[mindslight]

More recently, don't forget them being completely silent when Breonna Taylor was summarily executed for Kenneth Walker daring to exercise his second amendment right of home defense in the middle of the night. When this movement says "freedom", they mean merely for themselves to do whatever they please - not as a universal societal principle.

[diggan]

> And I’ve lived in Europe for over a decade now and frankly much of Europe is painfully naive about how much people in power care about protestors waving clever signs.

I guess the same goes the other way, Americans seems painfully unaware how effective the public's will can be, when you act together. But I think that's to be expected, the US is still relatively new and young, compared to other countries, so lessons others have learned still need to be learned by the Americans themselves. I guess this is what we're witnessing right now.

I'd urge you to look up changes brought by protesting and riots, but I think we both know you're not interested in learning, since you already stated twice you think it's pointless.

[CalRobert]

Your condescending and dismissive tone notwithstanding, I am curious to hear more about peaceful protests working when they weren't backed with an implicit threat of removing politicians from power.

Ideally, of course, you have a functioning democracy, but I don't really think that describes much of the US at this point (the people who'd protest are mostly in blue states anyway where their votes, even if correctly tabulated, count less). Other examples might be Ghandi, who promoted nonviolence but really only got India's freedom when the British empire was in terminal decline, or the civil rights movement, which happened when the US was a much healthier democracy and swaying public opinion was enough to remove people through elections. You might cite the velvet revolution too, but that also was targeting an empire in decline.

I argue that elections in the US _will not matter_ (Trump's cryptic comments about how Elon knows all about these voting machines and they won Pennsylvania thanks to him are telling....) and in that context protest doesn't do anything because the people in power have nothing to fear if they ignore the protestors.

[marcosdumay]

> when they weren't backed with an implicit threat of removing politicians from power

Normally, in a democracy, when you get a lot of people together complaining about something, it is already an implicit threat of removing politicians from power.

But if you manipulate the electoral system enough, it stops being. The fact that this mostly doesn't work nowadays is loudly telling people all they need to know.

[diggan]

> Your condescending and dismissive tone notwithstanding

I was trying to adopt to your own tone, not sure why you'd feel that it is condescending or dismissive.

> I am curious to hear more about peaceful protests working

Some starting points: 2024 protests in Serbia leading to the resignation of the Prime Minister. 15-M protests in Spain leading to the formation of new political parties and reforms. Velvet Revolution (I know you already mentioned this) leading to the overthrowing of the communist government. The Singing Revolution leading to the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Euromaidan/Revolution of Dignity leading to the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. These are just recent examples, I could go on...

Honest question: Have you attempted to lookup examples yourself, and you didn't find a single example?

[Dalewyn]

It seems like you're missing something pretty basic here, so here it goes:

Government workers going on strike means they're doing what we want them to do, which is nothing. As a Trump voter, I want these federal government workers to stop working so the astronomical waste of our time/money and disturbing of peace stops.

The best work the US government does is when it's doing nothing, because it's hardly working properly unless it's forced to (ICE is an example of government actually working again).

Whether the workers resign, strike/protest, or get back to work implementing MAGA policies in the office, we win.

[9283409232]

I hope you still feel like you're winning when more wars start.

[Spooky23]

The good news is that as a Trump voter who is a MAGA believer, you’ve established that you’re ignorant and open to emotional manipulation. You’re the political equivalent of the old lady who talks to the scammers.

So when your glorious day comes, and your State asserts their rights and levies your bank account to pay for your parents medical bills as your filial responsibility, (or whatever your personal tragedy ends up being) you’ll have the feels, and will flip to the next cult of personality.

[CalRobert]

I agree with you 100%, but in the interest of effective discourse it might make more sense to steelman the response. For one thing I have a hard time believing that the best government is one which does nothing, considering the extent to which our lives depend on an intricate web of supply chains, information networks, etc. that require coordination at a high level and may not be best handled by businesses seeking local profit maxima.

But perhaps they're advocating a return-to-the-Earth philosophy with every person (or family) aiming for self sufficiency in a frontier-style economy. I doubt it (when I try to point out that their truck requires a lot more gas than they can refine as a hobby I get pushback), but maybe.

[Dalewyn]

>But perhaps they're advocating a return-to-the-Earth philosophy

Indeed. Not quite as far back in time as you sarcastically suggested, but down-to-Earth enough that Congress stops enjoying absolutely abysmal approval ratings and President Reagan's infamous line of "I am from the government and I am here to help." stops resonating so strongly as a prime criticism.

If we also have to destroy ostensibly useful institutions like NASA to achieve it, well then so be it. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the chances for more amicable processes have come and gone.

[jaybrendansmith]

Government is there to protect the people from corporate and foreign control. It's one of the main jobs it does. When I was a kid you couldn't breathe the air in LA, now you can. When I was a kid you could believe the news, now you cannot. Your philosophy of 'Government vs People' is faulty as it is missing those other influences. We will see soon if a smaller, less effective US government is better for the citizens. I have a strong feeling we're not going to like what we find out.

[CalRobert]

For what it's worth I wasn't being sarcastic. I spent some time in the smallholding/no-till/organic/homesteading world and there are some pretty decent arguments that modernity has done a lot to make us depressed and lonely. I also actually agree that a lot of government funds are wasted or spent poorly, if that counts for anything.