While you're right in those being reactions to a (correctly) perceived helplessness, have those things actually changed anything? I personally subscribe to Adam Curtis' argument [0] - from his works like Hypernormalisation and Oh Dearism - that they haven't changed anything fundamentally.

Sure, Brexit and Trump have had an effect, but are people truly better off? For all Trump's talk (whether you see that as positive or negative), I think we're seeing that even he's struggling against the whole system. And Brexit isn't really doing what anybody wants at the moment.

[0] Adam Curtis seems to come up regularly here on HN, for good reason. I can't believe it hasn't yet in this thread, but I'm happy to be the first. I strongly recommend all of Adam Curtis' work: https://thoughtmaybe.com/by/adam-curtis/

Large societal changes are fairly rare events. Personally I think the next stage is a new form of worker revolt, some new spin on Unions or Communism, the next Marx has yet to write his magnum opus yet though. Those words are still viewed as bad in the West, so it will need new terminology too.

And to be clear, I don't ascribe to communism or anything, I'm simply speculating that some sort of new ideology, with a focus on the common person, will arise in the next 50 years to direct and fuel the next revolt. You'll know it when you see it.

Occupy and Black Lives Matter[1] have deep ideological differences to Tea Party[2] and Donald Trump. Do not trust those who classify all of those as the same kind of civil uprising.

[1] https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/02/black-lives-matter-p...

[2] https://www.teaparty.org/about-us/

Apples, oranges, and grapes have deep biological differences. Do not trust those who classify all of those as the same kind of fruit.

Yes they are different. But in the ways they are similar is that they are expressing a frustration at the current status quo.

Isn't every protest about doing exactly that?

Well the clue is in the name, protest. It's not a gathering, or a congregation.

the only way they keep the ongoing strife from really effecting the political system is by keeping the left and right wings fighting each other over often minor disagreements.

Unfortunately, the disagreements are not minor anymore, as you can see on the social networks and in the streets of the USA.

many of the disagreements are being given hyperbolic treatment to the point where all Trump supporters are Nazis and liberals are all SJWs. That's not an environment that's conducive to talking about why e.g. the immigration ban is too far in defense of national security. It just becomes another "us vs them" black-and-white situation that can drive nothing but division.

It's the greater problem of the anti-science sentiment of the general public.

Even some of my brighter & more successful friends lack the self-awareness to have a constructive dialogue with the other side without "feelz" getting in the way of "realz". It doesn't help that none of them are policy experts or economists, but there it is.

I fully agree that facts must supersede feelings, but that doesn't mean that one has to be a policy expert or economist -- that's yet another rigging of the system.

You don't have to have studied very specific disciplines to be suspicous about the fact that your parents went casually to work at offices without ever "disrupting markets" or "moving forward and breaking things" and yet they had 2 cars, villa at the sea, and 2 apartments. How? By showing up at work and working times less than you or me.

And a new iPhone every year

consumerism is just giving the people what they want. It might be distracting, but just because that's what people want to do - chat to friends, play games, buy fashionable clothes etc. Politics is where the manipulation happens.