Comment on Why aren't there mass protests in the USA?
it_depends_man@lemmy.world 1 week agoThe problem is that of those 20/30% only 10% will actually get out on the streets so you are left with around 2% of the general population. And that ain’t much
So you do agree?
Getting mass protests organized is a tremendous effort. If you have 80-90% support for something, getting 30-40% on the street is a huge accomplishment. If only 30% support the idea in the first place, there is no chance.
The “mass protest” has to be at a scale, where it’s basically a general strike where society shuts down because people are protesting.
That doesn’t mean stop trying, but also
but a very loud and significant minority
This is meaningless in a country that chooses to ignore public voices. Authoritarian regimes can stay stable with 10-15% support of the population, ignoring protests and complaints.
JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No, I disagree. If things are really fucked (as they are) 30% of a population is more than enough to enact change. If they are really motivated to do so. Get most of those 30% only the street and you see what power it has.
Of course with 80/90% it’s easier. Much much easier but that’s just fantasy land. You can get 90% of the population to agree on many basic facts, so you can forget about having then agree to protest together.
Plenty of revolutions were made, and dictatorships overturned with much fewer people on board.
I very much disagree on how much power 30% of the population has. Yes the electoral system you have in the USA is beyond stupid. However voting is only the easiest and most polite way to make change.
Go on strike, protest, build some guillotines. If the population really wants it, change will be made, even if it’s only 15/30%. Because the remainder of that population will not opposite necessarily. They just don’t care enough to protest.
it_depends_man@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Alright. I hope that I’m wrong too, after all.