Does Protesting Really Change Anything?
Share
A lot of what we talked about this week comes down to a question we keep hearing, and sometimes asking ourselves: does protesting really change anything?
What’s happening in Minneapolis has forced that question back into the open. The killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good. The videos. The statements from officials that don’t match what people watched happen in real time. And the response that always follows: people should have stayed home.
If they’d stayed home, they’d be safe. If they hadn’t protested, none of this would have happened. Order would have been preserved.
That argument sounds familiar because we’ve heard it before.
When “Peace” Is the Priority
We started the episode with a statement from Matt Moberg, the chaplain for the Minnesota Timberwolves, responding to what was happening in his city. One line stood out immediately:
“Peace isn’t what you ask for when the boot is already on someone’s neck. Peace is what the powerful ask for when they don’t want to be interrupted.”
That line gets at something important. Calls for peace aren’t neutral when violence is already happening. They usually mean “stop making this uncomfortable” or “stop forcing us to look at it.”
When churches, politicians, or public figures talk about peace without naming harm, what they’re really asking for is quiet.
“Just Stay Home” Doesn’t Stop Violence
One of the most common reactions we’ve seen is that people shouldn’t be out in the streets at all. That if they stayed home, no one would get hurt.
But staying home doesn’t stop harm. It just removes witnesses.
If no one is out there filming, there’s nothing to contradict the official version later. No videos. No documentation. No proof when the story shifts. As we talked about, the people protesting don’t have the power to enforce accountability, but they are often the only ones creating a record of what actually happened.
That matters when language starts changing. Protests become “riots.” Protesters become “agitators.” Violence gets reframed as necessary force.
This Is How Change Has Always Been Treated
None of this is new. Protest has always been framed as the problem in the moment. Civil rights activists were called dangerous. Marches were treated as threats. People were told to wait, to be patient, to stop causing trouble.
And looking back, it’s easy to say those protests worked. In the moment, they were dismissed the same way they are now.
Change didn’t happen quickly. In many cases, it took decades. People who pushed for it often didn’t live to see it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary. It means it wasn’t convenient.
Protest Isn’t About Feeling Effective
We were honest about the frustration. Protesting doesn’t always feel like it does anything. Paying attention is exhausting. Watching this unfold, week after week, wears people down.
But disengaging doesn’t make the system less violent. It just makes it easier to ignore.
When people say they “don’t do politics,” what they usually mean is the system doesn’t disrupt their lives enough to demand a response. That’s not neutrality. It’s distance.
And that distance disappears quickly once harm gets close enough.
Bearing Witness Still Matters
We didn’t end the episode with a clean answer. There isn’t one. Protest doesn’t guarantee change, and silence doesn’t protect anyone.
But history is clear about one thing: staying quiet has never been what moved things forward.
Protest matters because it forces harm into the open. Because it creates a record. Because it refuses to let violence happen in the dark.
And because peace that depends on ignoring what’s happening isn’t peace at all.