They didn’t “assert” anything, Mr. high school debate squad, they looked at hundreds of campaigns over the last century and reported results. The study is linked - you’re welcome to critique their methodology after reading it.
Since you read it, and don’t reference them addressing the fact pattern I mentioned, I’m not sure reading it would be worth my time. I’d love to be convinced, however, if you can answer one question.
How did she categorize a movement as “non-violent” or not?
I didn’t read it, nor did I claim to have. It comes down to whether it’s more reasonable to have confidence in a study by a Harvard academic or the dismissive comments of a social media rando. Now go ahead and have the last word so you can give yourself internet victory points, woo-hoo! IDGAF.
DomeGuy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It shouldn’t be. Asserting that “no non-violent protests have failed” ignores an obvious null hypothesis.
Tyrannical regimes attack non-violent protests that get large enough, and then call said movements “violent” to justify what the state did to them.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They didn’t “assert” anything, Mr. high school debate squad, they looked at hundreds of campaigns over the last century and reported results. The study is linked - you’re welcome to critique their methodology after reading it.
DomeGuy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Since you read it, and don’t reference them addressing the fact pattern I mentioned, I’m not sure reading it would be worth my time. I’d love to be convinced, however, if you can answer one question.
How did she categorize a movement as “non-violent” or not?
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I didn’t read it, nor did I claim to have. It comes down to whether it’s more reasonable to have confidence in a study by a Harvard academic or the dismissive comments of a social media rando. Now go ahead and have the last word so you can give yourself internet victory points, woo-hoo! IDGAF.