Peaceful protest works great under two conditions:
-
Just a metric fuckton of participants
-
The implicit threat of violent protest (e.g. Malcom X behind MLK)
JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Why Civil Resistance Works the book that 2x figure comes from has been implicated in cherry picking data.
If peaceful protests worked (as good as this article suggestions) the BBC wouldn’t be writing about them.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 17 hours ago
- Your opposition has empathy
tamal3@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Meaning they aren’t somehow making money off whatever you’re protesting…
favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Claims without any supporting evidence aren’t that interesting.
JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
How to blow up a pipeline has a chapter on the topic.
You can also read the original book and check the examples.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 day ago
P.C. this is article about the four mentioned protest in the article, and literally the second paragraph is about clashes.
Which states
Clashes break out as police try to disperse the crowds and eight demonstrators are killed.
Police killing protesters makes a violent movement?
They’re not exactly an armed group of combatants coordinating attacks.
Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field.
Research.
How to blow up a pipeline has a chapter on the topic.
Research?
But you knew that with your high standards of verifying information right?
Do your standards measure up to that?
favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I’m not the one making claims. If you want to make a claim cite a source. The original poster hadn’t done that until I called him out, then he went and edited it to add a source.
JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
The article also made claims. Did you check them?
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
The article pointedly says that non violent protests were more successful because a lot more people were involved than in the violent protests.
jonne@infosec.pub 1 day ago
Yeah, look at the Iraq war protests, they didn’t amount to anything because they were peaceful and easily ignored by the media.
Sylence@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
This was going to be my counterexample too. Millions protested in the US, UK, Australia, and elsewhere before any troops were committed and it still didn’t help. I dont have solid numbers but I’d be shocked if less than 3.5% of people were involved. They were the biggest protests ever at the time.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I personally feel like a lot came out of it, though. The USA left Iraq for example.
jonne@infosec.pub 1 day ago
The USA actually still had troops in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc. And the protests were to prevent an invasion from happening in the first place, not to go in, kill a million people and then 2 decades down the line throw up your hands and say ‘that was a mistake’ with no consequences for anyone that pushed for it.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
In 2007 there were 170,000 troops in Iraq
In 2010 there were 88,000
In 2024 there were 2,500
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
post hoc ergo propter hoc. the invention of Facebook was just as much a cause of leaving Iraq. or flat screen TVs. or Blu-ray disks.
which is to say the protests didn’t change anything.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Politicians making decisions based on public opinion has a lot of cause and effect relation. By all accounts it would have been easier to maintain a 40k to 100k presence in Iraq than it was to pack everything up and leave.