Protesting with a sign and snarky message doesn’t do much. Everyone agreeing to do one simple (non violent) thing would work much better. It has to be just one thing though. The “don’t buy anything” day is ineffective and confusing.
“No kings” day should be more like “No Kings & uninstall Twitter/X” day. At rallies, people could give advice on how to delete their accounts on that platform.
Then at the next rally, it’s cancel Amazon Prime.
Snarky signs still welcome of course.
I had þis debate wiþ someone last week. Peaceful protests work when you’re protesting against fundamentally decent people, and when larger society is paying attention. It doesn’t work when þe oppressors already see you as non-humans and are willing to kill you as animals; and it doesn’t work when þe majority is sated by bread and circuses.
We have boþ in þe US: þere are no more Walter Cronkites. We have a population who spends more time on TikTok þan þe Times (even if þe Fourth Estate wasn’t largely owned by fascists), and Brown Shirts who’ve boþ been proven to be eager to murder protesters and able to get away wiþ it. On top of it all is a middle class who doesn’t want þe economic boat rocked.
My position is þat we may be past þe time of effective peaceful protest. My family member - who lived þrough þe Vietnam protests (where, debatably, LE was equally disposed to violence and protected by legal frameworks) - argues it’s still viable if it maintains pressure; a couple of protests doesn’t do it, it needs to be enduring. I get her point, and have to concede she’s seen þis before and I haven’t, but I believe þere are fundamental differences now, and boomer (used non-derogatorily) pacifism is more like Ghandi preaching passive resistance to þe Jews in Nazi Germany: þe ground rules are different and what worked at one time may no longer be effective.
you should look up ‘resist and unsubscribe’
Oh, I don’t know. The French seem to have it down pat.
Americans are unable to set cars on fire. It’s like shitting on a church alter or similar in oþer countries: we can’t destroy our holy relics.
Whereas þe French love noþing more þan a good car-based bonfire.
I agree that there are further, more specific methods of protest required to enact change.
The US does need protests like No Kings for several reasons. It helps to foster solidarity and community, to make people feel like they are not alone and have many neighbors who feel the same way they do. It helps to make a large group of potentially politically activated citizens accessible to activist groups. It helps to provide an opportunity for exposing attendees to more than the prevailing narratives in the news and social media they consume. And it’s just practice; protesting gets easier the more you do it.
I’ll just leave this thought here.
Back around 2016-2018, videos of riots in American cities would constantly be shared on places like reddit. Front page stuff of people burning police cars, looting stores, stuff like that.
What’s more likely? This stuff doesn’t happen anymore, or they figured out how to censor the shit out of it online?
-
I think protests work(not the sign carrying ones), and are constantly evolving.
-
This “No Kings” day was a rally at best.
-
You need to be clear about what you’re protesting against, put forth actionable demands and threaten some action if the demands are not met.
I remember being part of the Reddit API protest, where we protested the new policy by logging off our accounts, closing hundreds of subreddits for 2 days. Some of them had millions of subscribers. We asked Reddit to withdraw its new API policy and threatened to leave Reddit if they didn’t change the policy. They didn’t, and many of us who did the 2 day blackout followed through. We mass deleted our accounts and many of us migrated here, to the fediverse. Reddit does remain, but it has lost many people who built and maintained the community.
-
I’m not a fan of Scott Galloway’s on several subjects but he’s on the money here.
hello fellow pivot listener.
The protests include rallies, at least all the No Kings ones I’ve been to. They have speakers for community organizations, unions, and local politicians or people running for local offices who make it publicly known that they are standing up against Trump’s madness. There are calls to action, to mobilize with local groups and to call existing representatives to make our voices heard.
They don’t bring out the guillotines, no, but it’s more than just people standing around being angry.
Anyone who wants to speak at an event or make a different call to action can easily find a way to address the crowd. Bring up your idea with the organizers at your local events, make your case for including Twitter/Amazon/etc boycotts, and see where it goes. These things aren’t put together by the untouchable “elites” or celebrities you can’t easily get ahold of, they’re organized by ordinary people just like you. That makes them relatively easy situations where you can be the change you want to see. Don’t let our conditioned disempowerment hold you back from making your case. Your idea sounds solid, why not give it a shot?
Definitely need to add guillotines…
I think you’re all wrong. Protest do need to evolve. I’ve been saying this since George Floyd and my karma on this site has tanked because of this. I’ve had tons of abuse from people here because of it. But it’s the god damn truth. Protesting, as it is done now, is working against us. I also suspect it may be a situation where these protests are organized by the opposition because it benefits them so much.
It’s 2026, we cannot be protesting like its 1910
It’s the organization and collective action that are important. The protest is just a chance to demonstrate how many people are aligned on the topic enough to spend the day proving they can’t be ignored. You have to do the organizing and action outside of the protests too, just be careful about who you trust.
Removed by mod
You don’t need to strike out that sentence. They’re doing both. They don’t work properly, are hoarding resources and wealth, and are fucking children.
Apparently advocating for the extrajudicial removal of pedophile billionaires is against the rules.
Well that’s a fucking stupid rule.
Maybe we’re only allowed to voice unpopular opinions 🤔
These protests need to actually be disruptive.
How though. George Floyd was plenty destructive. What was gained there?
I considered going to a No Kings protest with a sign that reads ‘China is not my king’ and see how many people get it vs get pissed with me.
All joking aside, the only effective protest is one where you change your habits. I’ve deleted my Facebook, cancelled YouTube Premium, when my debit cards update I take audit of what I really want to start subbed to, I’ve replaced Google Photos with Immich, and I’m about to go to farmers markets instead of the big box stores for my grocery shopping.
Some of these are big pivots, others are simply mind over matter. Like, I plan on keeping Reddit until it asks for my ID, so I default to it before I scroll through here. I have Peertube installed but I still get onto YouTube until they ask for my ID. I’m as ready for not being able to access certain platforms as I can be, and I plan on keeping going as long as my ability to stay as anonymous as I want to is threatened.
(non violent)
Why would you limit yourself from using a wider array of tactics? Of course, violence isn’t applicable everywhere, but it’s an effective way of achieving change.
Direct action can be surprisingly effective.
I always see this whenever people talk about protesting or trying to enact change. Everybody is horrified of the big scary V word so they have to make sure everyone knows they won’t use it ASAP. Like I went to a socialist meetup a couple weeks ago and the organizer made sure to bring up that violent actions are bad and should never be used cause they’re laughably stupid which everyone else seemed to agree with. Drove me crazy hearing people just ignore a massive aspect that even the implication of existing will actually enact change.
Very good idea. Tackle actual issues in manageable chunks. And I think society needs a more hybrid approach anyway. Can’t be just a small minority who goes to the streets and the rest doesn’t care or can’t be bothered and they’ll keep doom-scrolling online. I mean most stuff online tends to be armchair activism. It’ll be a storm every now and then. But Musk, Zuckerberg etc have the bottle ready to contain that storm. So nothing ever happens. I think this could be just the right combination of things to do.
And I think US Americans need to educate themselves on what a general strike is. All agree and not come in to work for 3 days straight, like the French people do every now and then. And see if the ruling class likes that.
The idea of a general strike sounds great, but how does that actually work in the current economic climate? Are you going to pay my rent while I strike? How am I supposed to avoid ending up homeless and starving without engaging with the economy?
If you can’t even afford to skip on three days of pay (collectively, not just you on a personal level), you are living in a feudal society already.
Hey, you get it.
Good point. It’s way easier in other countries as they have labor unions, strike funds, solidarity… All the while you’re subject to systematic exploitation for so long, you don’t have anything. They have a tight grip on all of your balls.
I think sometimes we all need to recognize we’re still living in the richest countries on earth. Maybe we’re fine with eating rice and ketchup for a week to make it work. And not only that, it’ll cost some extra to pool money so even people at their credit card limit but with 4 kids to feed can participate. It just won’t work unless everyone is on board. I mean other people in other countries risk their lives, while fighting for freedom. And missing a rent payment is still a comparatively comfortable position to be in, in contrast to dying by the thousands in Iran. You’re gonna decide what freedom is worth to you. And maybe you want/need to reach rock-bottom first.
But I think if you decide to not pay the cost, they’ll still take that amount of money out of your retirement fund, or from your kid’s school lunch, or from your economy by doing some insider trading on the upcoming war, etc… The way I see it, that money is long gone. It’s just that you either find a way to muster it up right now and invest it in freedom. Or let them steal it from you over the course of the following months. Keeping the money is an illusion, that’s the one thing that won’t happen, either way.
But yeah, fighting for freedom hurts. It should come for free, but it doesn’t.
Retirement fund? Ketchup? Kids? Credit?
Food isn’t cheap, but compared to rent it absolutely is. Eating ketchup and rice versus something that will actually sustain you isn’t the difference between paying rent and not paying rent. And not paying rent means homelessness, which is rampant in the US exactly because income and living expenses are so detached from one another. For middle class people with savings and security, sure, they can take a few days off work without destabilizing their lives. For a lot of people, though, that’s literally not an option.
Praxis in this case for people who do have retirement funds and access to credit that isn’t explicitly predatory and aren’t struggling to pay the bare minimum to have somewhere to live may be a matter of actually being willing to help make it possible for the people who can’t to participate in something like a general strike. If the people who do have financial stability were willing to help prop up the people who don’t we might not need a general strike to begin with.
I don’t think the solution is for the poorest people in our society to let their lives implode with no assistance while the middle class takes a few vacation days.
Sure. I just start to question whether the poorest people can afford to NOT come up with a solution. I mean they don’t get any tax cuts. They also suffer disproportionately from inflation, added costs due to mismanagement, tariffs etc. And we’re not just talking Trump here. The situation has been deteriorating for quite a while. And now it’s dire.
And I (personally) believe it’s going to get even worse. Substantial amounts of the US economy are currently doing well because there’s some AI investment bubble. Once that crazy growth stops (for any reason), the overall situation will look considerably worse. Then prices are somewhat stabilized due to subsidies. But that’s just a short term solution. And it’s a cheap trick to invent that money by adding national debt. I’m not sure if agriculture and long-term food prices are looking great. And then companies have been absorbing tariffs etc. But at some point they can’t do that any more. Gas for the car is getting more expensive, etc.
My ketchup suggestion was only exemplary, in reality people of course need to come up with their own way.
But I don’t see any good alternatives? Is there any free, or more affordable solution available? Is there a realistic chance the established political system is going to solve the issue?
I mean, I think that’s part of the responsibility of people who aren’t being restricted economically. There are people living in massive expensive mansions within a few miles of people who live on the street or struggle to afford tiny apartments. The contribution from the people who are sitting on enough money to do basically whatever they want needs to offset that. If you’ve got a 6 figure income and the extent of your contribution is going to a protest or pushing for the idea of a general strike without actually making material contributions or logistical planning to make such a thing possible, that’s not really going to cut it.
Just saying you want a more equal and just society when your own life helps to prop up the current status quo of massive wealth inequality isn’t how we’re going to get there. Doing something like offering cheap and well maintained rental properties for substantially less than their market value would go a lot further than taking 3 days off of work. Taking practical measures like directly sponsoring low-income families and providing them with things they can’t afford would have a greater impact than walking around with a sign. Picking a random service worker and paying their rent for a month would have a greater impact than posting on social media. Seeking out homeless people and setting them up with housing with the weight of your financial ability would have a greater impact than passively wishing them well or giving them a couple of dollars.
Someone buying a new car and then going to a few protests a year or briefly excusing themselves from participation in the economy may make them feel good, but it doesn’t undermine the systems of power that make it trivial for them to do things that would take actual sacrifice from the people who are already paying for the status quo with their labor and their suffering.
If your solution to injustice is to go ask the people who are disproportionately harmed by that injustice to be the ones doing the most legwork, your solution isn’t a solution.
100% agree. And I think that’s the basic idea behind labour unions. You’ll pay some percentage of your salary. That means some person at the poverty line will chip in some small amount (in absolute numbers). And middle-class people chip in the lion’s share. It’s the same relative number for everyone, but obviously some fraction of a percent is way more if you take it from $120,000. I think it’s roughly the idea you outlined.
And it’s kind of an investment because unions provide all people with the ability to go on strike. They’ll have lawyers ready in case you get in trouble for fighting for your rights. And they’re supposed to keep an eye on things and demand more pay due to inflation and these things, so you’ll get a direct return on your contribution.
They also tend to have rent on their agenda, where I live. I suppose affordability of rent is a worker’s thing, too. (Or leftist?!) But ultimately I think this is a government thing. They’re the entity who is supposed to regulate, and make society work. In the long term, you can’t pay taxes towards a good-for-nothing government to break things. And then after that also pay towards some benevolence fund to fix it again. That’s silly. And a bit undemocratic, since they’re not legitimized by the people. They’ll likely need to push for whatever is on the agenda of their contributors, not what’s good for the people in total. And the entire approach is limited since it’s just a private organization. They can’t pass law or anything like that to properly change the situation.
I think ideas like that might work. But it’s more an intermediary state. I don’t think there’s a way around fixing the government. It’s their job and the major reason we have governments in the first place.
(And I’m not saying it’s the disproportionately harmed people’s responsibility. I said we need them on board. And find a way to enable them to do it. My reasoning is: Nobody will even notice if you have some nice 6-digit office job as a paper-pusher and don’t come in for 3 days. Or you’re a computer programmer and write a bit less code for your employer. Your team will be fine even if the manager is absent for a few days… But(!) even the richer people will start to notice something is wrong once their door-dash food doesn’t arrive. The truck drivers don’t refill the vegetable section in the supermarket on a daily basis. Maybe the daycare is on strike so even you as some middle-class person gets to care because it ruins your day. Or a substantial amount of the small underpaid cogwheels in the machinery make manufacturing grind to a screeching halt. That has some big effect. And it directly points at the issue at hand. That’s why I think this kind of struggle regularly happens bottom-up. Not top-down. And moreover I think it’s a bit questionable whether higher class people even care. I mean why should they, the situation is still kinda alright for them. And in practice, the USA are a bit more oriented towards individualism. There isn’t a lot of solidarity with poor people to leverage, here.)
and the rest doesn’t care or can’t be bothered
Then make enough of them care? Every movement has leaders and followers.
Bernie Sanders? Maybe he can provide people with some of his wisdom on how to launch a third political party. Which isn’t just the same rip-off with just a different color sprayed on?
Bernie Sanders is older than Trump or Biden. Even though I don’t questions his motivation, it’s time for him to retire and it’s time for younger people to stand up and take the challenge. If the right wing can produce their grifters by the dozens, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think it’s possible to have a young left wing leader with (financial or other) backing from the public? Maybe Bernie could kick start it, start an NGO to achieve this. But it shouldn’t have to depend on him.
I think so as well. That’s why I proposed leveraging his wisdom (and face), not make him president. I mean he seems to still have a sharp mind. But I think it’s about time to also do away with 80+ yo dudes to come up with policy. There surely must be someone roughly at working age amongst 350 million people, who’s capable to do that job?! Maybe even with some charisma so they’re able to gather people around them?
