No. Dunno where did you take that 0.5% from, it’s not empirically confirmed by anything.
Like 20% if you want to see civil war. Like 40% if you want to see regime change.
Comment on Climate scientists flee Twitter as hostility surges
Eximius@lemmy.world 2 months agoIf by ignore, you mean stop paying taxes and working in any capacity for government in one go, yes would work. The only fear is being singled out, if more than 0.5% of the people do it, army wont even have the guts to get tanks out, they will join.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Eximius@lemmy.world 2 months ago
There is the semi-usually-known research that suggests 3.5% is enough for non-violent protests to reach changes. www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/chen15682
1 in 200 people is essentially everyone knowing personally one person who is against the government. Maybe it isn’t enough.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It doesn’t work. It’s some urban legend that this is sufficient. Even those 600k may or may not be stopped by a threat of real ammo being used. I’m not even talking about coordination.
One can “prove” anything with selectively chosen statistics.
Eximius@lemmy.world 2 months ago
They werent selectively chosen. " An original, aggregate data set of all known major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 is used to test these claims." As well as any researcher who isn’t a complete buffoon would only look at statistics that has only a 2-3 sigma chance of only being stochastic noise.
Siegfried@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Touché
Venezuela has ~70% of the people against the regime, (nearly 90% counting the 5M that were not allowed to vote) and the needle isn’t even moving.
And in Russia being “singled out” is apparently a national tradition.
Sorry, I may be over pessimistic today.
Eximius@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I guess that’s a fair example. But logically sounds impossible for such control to be made. If a group went out to the streets to oust the government, you would say at least 45% would join.