[removed]

Exactly. I was always taught dont ever bring up an issue without some kind of solution. saying "End police brutality" is so fucking stupid. How about instead something like "We demand descalation training" and protest until you get it.

But also there was no practical goal to the occupy movement, they literally were having meetings to try to come up with goals to present to media. It was funded apparently by a company from Vancouver, Canada, people were being bussed in and provided tents and sleeping bags, but no indication what to represent. It's not like they were for or against anything, and different groups came up with different things, like bank regulations, we want food and access to bathrooms while we're here, or we're the 99% (whatever action that's supposed to represent).

When I was trying to figure it out I figured follow the money, and I never was able to figure out why a Canadian company was invested and promoting it. Maybe just as PR for themselves locally? *shrugs

Looking at the Wikipedia page on it now, there's nothing really different.

Take the entire month of June for example.

Not every comment has to convince someone of something, sometimes you can just enjoy the ride.

I do think the article you posted was written with a bias towards trying to make people believe boycotts work without actually providing evidence they work. So yeah, I guess that means I think it is a bad article. Not saying you're bad, just probably the first article you thought was sufficient, wasn't to my eyes.

If I was to write an article trying to prove that boycotting works, I would strive to include data showing loss of profit due to the boycotts as well as shareholder meetings or complaints about those losses resulting in a change of company policy. To the point of this post though even that is insufficient...

This post implies that boycotts create change that protests can't. So changing a store from stocking one item versus another is not the sort of change a protest is aiming for. I don't see a boycott changing how police interact with black people, or how politicians interact with religious groups to the detriment of women's rights.

[removed]

Give it a minute...the Fed monetary and political fiscal policies will take care of that.

[removed]

Copped a 55” oled during the last protest. Changed my at home entertainment.

Strikes have always been the way; they helped bring about democracy

And that’s why the government allows anti-union laws to be broken and even threatens legal action against strikers

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

That’s not the impression that the news is giving us over here in the USA… the impression they’re giving us is that the government is winning, I haven’t even seen anything about Iranians protesting in weeks

However… it does.

[removed]

Strikes and boycotts are types’of protest. What you really want to say is that single marches don’t change anything and that we need to mix it up with others. Those types of protest generally weren’t ever meant to just be by themselves. Look at any successful social movement and absolutely you will see them use many types of protests.

The public marches have their place and their reason. They are one tool in the arsenal of social movements. They aren’t meant to be the only tool tho…

[deleted]

You can't effectively protest, strike or boycott with an aim of demanding someone fix something.

You need to specify what you actually want them to do.

Don't demand they fix worker conditions.

Demand they don't count toilet breaks against your working hours.

Protest can bring changes. And has in last decade

He’s saying you and 50 buddies with signs on the street corner for one or two afternoons doesn’t do shit

That and specificity plus intention. Most people Tilt at windmills ignoring actual issues for problems instead

100% it’s all about organizing

Sustained action is the key.