[3qz]

What’s the point of protesting when they don’t even have elections? Why can’t the government just ignore the protesters with no consequences?

[brundolf]

Even authoritarian regimes have to think about civil unrest. The people under them still have some power: they have the power to revolt. Dictators are terrified of this possibility. And a protest is a way of signaling "hey, the temperature is rising buddy".

A democracy by comparison functions as a gradual release valve: smaller amounts of unrest can affect smaller changes, without overthrowing the entire system.

[alexvoda]

The feedback loop is slightly more complex. Dictators are also afraid of betrayal. And rising temperature creates opportunities for underlings to decide betrayal is profitable.

[MuffinFlavored]

what’s the smallest protest in china that would actually stand any kind of chance of successful revolt/revolution?

[rasz]

>Why can’t the government just ignore the protesters with no consequences?

Worked for Macron in France.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< What’s the point of protesting when they don’t even have elections?

Huh? Elections just happened. They were not direct elections, but within the party system they were elections.

If I were to compare Chinese elections, I would maybe compare them to UK House of Lords.

As to your general point, "why do anything when you have no right to do it"?

Well, we are humans. Not all of us just roll over when we are told to.

[matthewmacleod]

If I were to compare Chinese elections, I would maybe compare them to UK House of Lords.

… the UK House of Lords which is famously unelected?

[dontbenebby]

>What’s the point of protesting when they don’t even have elections?

Because people who aren't sociopaths experience psychic distress at the idea of violence. (That's absolutely an Always Sunny reference, BTW.)