[yesco]

You're describing how protests energize people who already agree. I'm asking how they persuade people who don't. The honks are from your side. The people you need are either tuning out or getting annoyed. Visibility used to equal influence when everyone watched the same three channels. That's not the world we live in anymore.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Protests aren't trying to reach the people who've already decided they're wrong. They're trying to reach the unpersuaded masses who don't currently agree or disagree.

Obviously this requires the protesters to make a bit of a judgment call. Do I think the typical person leans so strongly towards my side that they'll take it when I force the issue, even if I annoy them? Sometimes the answer is no, and I've definitely seen people do counterproductive protests that way. But sometimes the answer is yes.

[patmorgan23]

Protests themselves probably aren't good at convincing people, but they can bring awareness to an issue. They can persuade politicians they need to take action on an issue.

[esseph]

> You're describing how protests energize people who already agree. I'm asking how they persuade people who don't.

That's not the intent.

[temp8830]

Yup, the intent is for the protesters to pat one another on the back and feel superior to the grey masses.

[goatlover]

The No Kings protests were big enough to be all over social media as well as mainstream media. Members of the administration and Congressional Republicans tried to characterize it as far leftist radicals. The president made a disgusting AI video dumping on the protestors. So it was big enough to get under their skin.

Protests are one way We the People remind the government who they're supposed to be representing. Who has the real power in a democracy.