Re:Reddit subs with millions of followers plan to extend the...
by colonwqbang on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @06:16PM
(#36318357)
The threat isn't so much the initial strike, as the promise that more will follow unless the opponent agrees to negotiate. Without such a promise, the strike would indeed be ineffective.
Negotiations are typically held during a ceasefire, not while the parties are actively trying to hurt each other.
Re:Reddit subs with millions of followers plan to extend the...
by nagonago on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @12:50AM
(#36321580)
I agree. In addition to your theory, I think that even if protests are ineffective in the short term, they can be effective in the long term. That is, the media attention given to protests can gradually change people's thinking. But it is a very slow and subtle shift, and impossible to measure. Of course, one might argue that shifts in the zeitgeist were already happening, and protests are just a symptom. Personally I think it goes both ways, they feed into each other.
We can hope that even if the Reddit protests ultimately go nowhere, they will at least have shifted public opinion, if only slightly.
People keep saying this. It's true of the vast majority of protests. And yet, they keep happening, and I don't think it's because they're completely ineffective.
I'll grant I don't entirely get it either, but here's my theory of how they work: by being a show of unity, protests are an honest signal of power. In any case where the party being protested against is not willing to cause mass civilian casualties, unified rebellion is a genuine threat. It's an even bigger threat in a democracy, or a commercial setting. It's also a signal of willingness to accept costs (not guaranteed honest, but it's still pretty hard to coordinate a bluff in public).