Do peaceful protests work?

do peaceful protests work?

I forget, who is the governing body in Egypt again?

the army

Of course, if you're going to protest is better to not disturb anyone. That's the kind of manifestation that people remember.

Ever wonder why peaceful protests are tolerated so much, sometimes even encouraged by large corporate interests?

>what is the Autumn of Nations

As much as everyone is shitting on them in this thread peaceful protests can work. But, the ability to work is based on one key factor does the government care what it's people think or failing that can the peaceful protest do enough economic damage to hurt the government.

No, and I'd say violent protests don't work the majority of the time either, they usually end up with the government coming down harder

The president of South Korea was just impeached.

Were the Velvet Revolutions really peaceful?

Well I think it is very situational. It depends on the type of governement and the size of the protest

What exactly has the women's march accomplished?

Making us hate and despise feminism even more.

making me go "ugh" internally

BLM hadn't done shit, the 99% didn't do shit, hell the pipeline protests ultimately didnt do anything. No one's leading these things, so it's just a bunch of people getting together to yell for a bit then go home.

>Egypt
>Ukraine (overshadowed by Russian intervention, but the heads changed)
>Brazil
>S. Korea
>India
>U.S. 60's

Sometimes.

>no one's leading these things

...

You a jew poster?

/pol/ please. There's no MLK for these movements. With no one galvanizing the group for real action, they just cry in the streets for a bit then move on.

>mfw protests and strikes in America used to be violent af

Heh, I see that you're protesting. Did you remember to fill out the proper forms to legally use this piece of land? Didn't think so, stand still while we pepper spray everyone.

There's a strain of manufactured chaos to this. The media attention, the funding, and there is funding, and the organization is, all by design. Apply who's name to that you will.

As to the Jewish question, the Jews' love-affair with the left comes more from supporting the people who support them, than a maliciousness towards their host society. To be a Jew is to be separate of the rest of society, historically speaking. Jews are extremely opinionated, argumentative, to the point of neurosis, and politically active. Their mistrust and animosity isn't entirely unearned, as they, as a whole, have a habit of wanting to arrest and guide society, while remaining separate and ultimately free of it. almost as a kind of social experiment, to them.

If jews were guiding these protests, wouldn't they actually get shit done?

>what are politically motivated non-profits, NGO's and think-tanks
Now, if you could trace every tendril of these entities, that would lead you to the instigators and enablers.

They still aren't accomplishing shit, there's no public leader.

I never said there was "Jewish" presence in the protests. I was addressing the historical left-wing association of Jews, entirely separate, as someone brought up Jews, out of the blue.

The Sioux found breif sucsess, that is until Trump came to power.

Is America too diverse these days to get anything done via peaceful protest?

That's because there's no legal agenda. It's tension, anger and chaos. They're not trying to a new Civil Rights Act. It is, however, a nation-wide movement, with protests shooting up overnight, in cities all across the country. Apply the profit/power motive to fund an angry, violent element, to whoever you will. Draw your own conclusions.

>egypt
>implying that "revolution" accomplished anything other than making the people useful stooges for the military

Diverse has nothing to do with it. Public will, rights, "minorities", have nothing to do with anything. These are just terms thrown around to give cause to whatever is good business.

What's the point of just going out to yell about something, but not try to achieve anything?

>do peaceful protests work?
How sheltered do you have to be to even ask this question? I can see if you're Chinese or American but otherwise it's happening all the time all over the world. A union striking is a peaceful protest.

And what did the French Revolution accomplish, or the Bolshevik? The administration changed, into who's hands, that's not within the protesters' control, but the old order is out.

It's not about you. You're angry. Your head is filled with nonsense. You exist in a political echochamber. your world is a product of outside construction.

To who's profit or gain all of this was constructed, I don;t know, but it remains manufactured as ever.

The protesters are mere pawns of the new administration, just like with every war.

Yes.

Depends on time and place, but today, in most developed countries they work better than violent ones.

Violent protests only work if the army or police decides to switch sides and turn on the government, which is not very common. Otherwise they usually just alienate the rest of society and give a reason for the regime in power to arrest the leaders of the protesters.

The only time violence in protests work is if they are able to provoke and overreaction from the police. Like, there is a generally peaceful protest, then some people mix into the crowd and throw some rocks at the police who freak out and fire into the crowd, killing innocent people. This will turn more people against the regime and demoralize security forces. This however almost never happens in democratic countries, they tend to have well trained riot police that can't be provoked so easily, and even if they do they will be quickly prosecuted and will personally take the blame.

Only if the army lets you ransack the parliament.

They're pretty useless

sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. just as violent revolutions sometimes work and sometimes don't.

the most consistently successful form of peaceful protest is civil disobedience. Mass amounts of people not participating in the economy for several weeks, striking at your job, etc can get the message through by hurting the economy as a whole through inaction on the side of the producers and consumers.

India gained independence because the amount of civil disobedience made the colony cost more money than it brought in because of the hit it took economically from Ghandi's movement.

Other times they don't work. Occupy Wall Street didn't do shit to loosen the grip of America's most elite on the economy.

Same goes for violent protests and revolutions. Sometimes you get a French Revolution where everything changes, and other times you'll get a Pugachev's rebellion where the army puts it down.

tl;dr: it has worked but it depends on the political climate and situation, and same goes for violent protests.

only in white countries

define 'peaceful'

in some ways Gandhi was more violent that Hitler, in that the wee Indian effectively paralyzed and annihilated the entire functioning of the British Empire in India.

In what ways was Ghandi more violent than hitler?

The elites need a new pawn

She was simply too stupid

I think the guy is viewing violence in terms of making others bend the knee and causing broader sense of suffering

There's no such thing as a peaceful protest.
They only exist to serve as camouflage for violent elements to operate from.

Yeah but everything about that is exceptional. I mean she was impeached because she was taking orders from a witch queen cultist who was part of a group of billionaire witch Illuminati and sacrificed hundreds of high schoolers in a ferry accident as an offering to her dead cult leader father.

Whats up with his EQ placement htough

Neoliberals have come up with an amazing new word, "economic violence", that let's them justify persecuting strikers and the civilly disobedient.