News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I am not from the US, so I might be out of league here, but haven't recent US protest movements been somewhat ineffectual?
In a global context, successful protests movements tend to take active measures; blockading of transport and key commercial zones, organisation on a level that makes security forces ask themselves uncomfortable questions.
To be fair, such movements also tend to have very strange support (be it broad based or high approval amongst a very large minority).
It is not my intention to be defeatist or overly critical, just some thoughts. I could be wrong.
Sadly, yes. U.S. protest movements are generally not enough to make change. It takes a massive swing in public opinion before politicians consider doing something about it. Protesting helps, but it usually isn't enough. It took more than protesting to end the Vietnam War. Americans were majority in favour of it at the height of the protesting. And even when it started getting unpopular with the majority, Nixon didn't do anything about it until it benefitted him.
The only case I can think of where protesting (mostly) was enough- if you include the protests that did get violent and were deemed riots- is the civil rights movement. Even then, it took Kennedy getting assassinated for Johnson to put it through as a part of Kennedy's legacy. Was Kennedy ever going to push a civil rights act through? Was it all political hot air? We'll never know.
With the US civil rights movement it's worth considering the international context too. The cold war was was it's early phase of intensity and it was difficult for US to compete in terms of soft power with formal discrimination laws. The world was undergoing intense decolonisation during that period.
That being said, I don't support a defeatist view of the viability of protest. But you do need clear goals and a sufficiently large core group of people willing to take risks.
I wasn't trying to be defeatist. That's why I said they were not enough. More than protesting has to be done. In the American political system, that means a shitload of lobbying and networking to get to the ears of the people who need to hear it. Plus doing whatever you can to get the media on your side. The media turning on Nixon (and vice-versa) was a big help in turning people against Vietnam. There was a real "if the president says so, it's okay" attitude before that.