From emancipation to women’s suffrage, civil rights and BLM, mass movement has shaped the arc of US history
Trump’s first and second terms have been marked by huge protests, from the 2017 Women’s March to the protests for racial justice after George Floyd’s murder, to this year’s No Kings demonstrations. But how effective is this type of collective action?
According to historians and political scientists who study protest: very.
From emancipation to women’s suffrage, from civil rights to Black Lives Matter, mass movement has shaped the arc of American history. Protest has led to the passage of legislation that gave women the right to vote, banned segregation and legalized same-sex marriage. It has also sparked cultural shifts in how Americans perceive things like bodily autonomy, economic inequality and racial bias.
A reductive way to put it. But hey. If you have any better ideas, go get em.
I’m not saying I have better ideas, but if it doesn’t fix anything until it’s too late, “very” is not a good word to describe its effectiveness
But you crap on mine for understanding that I don’t have any better ideas too, but am aware of what protests do in terms of change? Got it.
What’s wrong with that? The title of this post was that protests are “very” effective. I’m arguing that they’re not, and apparently so are you.
Well I’m arguing that you are arguing the exact same thing. So, either you’re full of yourself and above self reflection or you’re throwing a temper tantrum to a total stranger thinking that it has some bearing on how you come off. The “title” is the beginning of the conversation. Tangents happen. It’s called conversation to most people.
The way you initially commented made it seem like you were arguing that long-term awareness justifies its classification as “very” effective and I’m arguing that it doesn’t. And now you’re saying that you’re arguing the same thing I am, so I can’t even tell what your stance is at this point or why you brought it up.
I didn’t justify anything. I told you what protests do. Which should be the most normal thing to discuss in a post about protests. It’s not like it’s a post on cats or groceries. It’s a linear connection.
Ok then let’s dissect your statement.
Not a complete sentence so not even sure what this means. But when taking it into the context of my statement that you replied to (which was about the effectiveness of the protests), I assume you’re saying that I was focusing on short-term gain in contrast to focusing on the long term when determining the effectiveness of the protests. Which hints that I should be taking different aspects into consideration and arguing differently. Which is a position, which I then assume you intend to defend.
If the topic wasn’t about the effectiveness, which was the primary topic of the comment you replied to, that should have been clarified.
Based on what’s inferred from the previous statement, this further validates its intent. It also brings up what specifically should be considered when arguing differently, which is “awareness”.
“Some of what you said is correct, but…” Argumentative-style writing, reinforcing the intent stated earlier.
Based on the context of the previous statements, reiterates that the effectiveness is determined by the long term, specifically “awareness”, as opposed to how I measured it.
So it seems like you were trying to justify something.