> Assuming critics are just reflexively resistant is a convenient way to avoid asking whether the criticism has merit. "They'd get it if they were more curious" is unfalsifiable.

I don't know if it can be proven or whatever, but I do know it has changed me.

There have been many events where I thought "hey, why is everybody whining about X thing?". "things are fine the way they are". Until I read more about it and changed my mind.

If it was purely online, I wouldn't take it so seriously.

So whether it can proven empirically or not, I know it changed me.

I think protests are good since it requires you to go outside and interact with other people, it requires a higher level of commitment than the slacktivism of the 2010s that was so prominent in online spaces. Polls are gamed all the time and social media is dominated by bots, but you cannot fake a large crowd in a protest. If a protest is large enough it creates a force that cannot be easily ignored.

> Everyone already knows dissent exists. Polls, social media, elections make that clear.

No, they really don’t. Have you never heard someone say that they have never met anyone who is X so it can’t be that popular? My own sister thought 2000 was going to be a landslide for Gore because she “hadn’t met anyone who was going to vote for Bush”.

> Assuming critics are just reflexively resistant

This is not an accurate or thoughtful characterization of what you're responding to; it's not even in the same ballpark.

> is a convenient way to avoid asking whether the criticism has merit.

Pure projection.