this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
619 points (99.4% liked)

politics

24157 readers
3627 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nuxi@lemmy.world 28 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

We gotta keep the momentum up. History suggests the threshold for achieving change is a turnout of 3.5% (roughly 12 million active participants)

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 21 minutes ago

Way way too much stock is placed in that study.

For one, their total sample size was only 323 events, only 3 of which met the "3.5%" level. So the statement that change is inevitable based on only 3 instances is really crazy.

Further, none of those three instances had participants thinking that 3.5% was some sort of goal, it was a correlation. So now you have a lot of protestors treating 3.5% as a goal rather than some organic emergent property of the broader movement. Even if there was something inevitable about having a 3.5% participation rate when no one is aware of that metric, simply knowing of the metric can change a lot.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 29 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

That number keeps getting thrown around but this admin dgaf. That number only works when the admin believes in human rights and when the admin cares about it’s popularity.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 49 minutes ago

Would you say that Ferdinand Marcos believed in human rights and did not care for his popularity?

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Turns out someone who looks like Luigi but is definitely not Luigi proved it takes only one death certificate to initiate change for scores of people

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com -3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

But nothing changed... Can you show a change in healthcare since? have acceptance rates gone up? premiums gone down?

Nothing changed.

Edit: Bunch of downvotes... but nobody can tell me anything that's changed... interesting isn't it?

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Several health insurers reversed some of their latest shitty policies within days of the event. Like the one that would put a time limit in the anesthesia they'd pay for. That's an immediate course change from hundred billion dollar companies.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 20 minutes ago

Like the one that would put a time limit in the anesthesia they’d pay for.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/12/06/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-reverses-planned-anesthesia-time-limits-after-intense-pushback/

Elected officials in Connecticut and New York both said they stepped in Thursday to intervene with Anthem’s new plan before the company announced the reversal. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said on X, formerly known as Twitter, the change was "outrageous" and she would “make sure New Yorkers are protected.” Connecticut’s comptroller Sean Scanlon said his office had already reached out to Anthem and the policy would “no longer be going into effect here in Connecticut.” Scanlon shared that update hours before Anthem announced the reversal.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Apart from all the claims that were suddenly approved or execs of other companies suddenly removing all personal info from websites?

Fear. Nothing meaningful will change until the rich fear for their lives, and we saw just how much they’re scrambling after 1 CEO.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 17 minutes ago

Apart from all the claims that were suddenly approved

Source this please... To date, I still see United Healthcare at dead bottom. And rate fluctuating only nominally over the past 12 months.

execs of other companies suddenly removing all personal info from websites?

If you're counting this as a meaningful change to healthcare... Then I guess you found one that I can't contest. Congrats!

Fear. Nothing meaningful will change until the rich fear for their lives, and we saw just how much they’re scrambling after 1 CEO.

No, this is my point. Even with "fear" nothing changed.

[–] Denjin@lemmings.world 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

British India didn't care about human rights

[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 1 points 8 hours ago

They cared about their public image.

[–] seejur@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It only works when you are near an election, and the election are coming. This administration is working on a different path: at least one year before the next election and is actively working to make sure (fair) elections might not happen anymore

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago

The cited scenarios were rarely democratic in nature.

Of course, in all the scenarios cited, there was no one telling them "get to 3.5% and things will happen", so with everyone saying "if we get to 3.5%, things will happen", that could itself break the "rule", as a sort of self-denying prophecy.

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

What do you suppose happens at this magic threshold? I'll give you a hint- it's nothing. We still have to do the work to actually make a difference. Protesting and building momentum is good, but we can't just wait until we hit this magic threshold and pretend that will fix everything and rest on our laurels.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 48 minutes ago

This is the right take. There's more that goes into than just achieving that number. It is necessary, but not sufficient.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This

Anyone else remember how the Women's March saved reproductive rights? Of course not, and now women are dying in Texas because doctors are afraid they'll be arrested for murder if they treat them for life threatening conditions.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 30 minutes ago

Of course, that was well below the claimed "magical" 3.5% level.