Protests are rarely about setting policy. They're about voicing their disagreement. Even if people at Occupy Wallstreet (and many other protests) can't agree on the solution, they do tend to agree on the problem.

Grassroots activism used to be better organised. Trade unions and other working-class organisations provided structure and institutional expertise. Discontent could be directed as part of a broader strategic campaign. The atomization of society has diminished the influence of these organisations. Most activism today is disorganised and strategically inept, simply because the instigators are inexperienced and lack the support of a wider network.

I believe cases like these are just spotlights on how different we as humans tend to think while assuming those grouped around us tend to be more similar than in actuality.

Its dangerous when all sides don't consider the others viewpoints at all.

Both sides are so busy trying to force their ideologies on all Americans through a tyranny of the majority that they are simply incapable of reason.

"how can you exercise this right if you support its infringement?"

"you should just give up your guns"

"don't expect anyone to stick up for you"

"you're a hypocrite who thinks 'screw everyone else because I already got mine.'"

That's a microcosm of what discourse is like if you have a moderate opinion these days. There is no middle ground.

Its quite reasonable to find it abhorrent, just don't take it as abhorrent because other people to you that it is.

I like statistics and politics, I dig into the numbers and the actual reports behind news stories and the agendas are so obvious, I get the reasons why, in the UK newspapers are sold on outrage and worldview confirmation first and second and facts about sixth.

I don't believe there was ever a golden age of media but I do think they had more integrity in the past.

Anyway, it is indeed disheartening that if we consider some other viewpoint or perhaps even sympathise with it how easy it is to be branded an enemy to the other. It's a 'you're with us or against us' mentality that is becoming more and more ingrained.

I disagree. The bullshit was just harder to discover in the past - without internet and 10,000 independent sources stating contrary to whatever the media was trying to peddle.

Media's job isn't to educate people. It's to educate people to see things "their" way which is where media bias, however major or slight, comes into play.

I think it's the opposite. The headlines, style, and bias made the bullshit more obvious in the past. Now, there can be 10,000 "independent" sources peddling the same person's bullshit. Media consolidation means many of the news sources all come from the same few dozen companies that consistently bullshit. False information also travels fast in waves across social media but debunks don't per Facebook. There are also firms specializing in doing this with propaganda teams.

It's golden age of media disinformation. Also, with so many sources of low integrity, it's harder than ever for the average person to figure out what's true. Smart people can pull it off for many things but it's a lot of work. More work than many will spend vs turning to favorite channel, station, or friend feed.

It's so much easier to find truth backed arguments with the internet, the average person can easily check sources. People are just mostly lazy and willing to let their biases inform what they will accept as true.

Exactly. Combined with easier spread of misinformation, it makes things worse than it was before where easily-misinformed population in voting or demand side has massive influence on our lives.

How about a Hartal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal

That implies there was a group, in a formal sense, at all.

Indeed. I think you've underscored exactly why calling out virtue signaling is so unhelpful for productive discourse.