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 2 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 2 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 2 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.
DomeGuy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Who I am and who did the study should be irrelevant. An idea should stand on its own or not.
Or do you really want to be the sort of person who dismissed Einstein as “Jewish science” or who told the Wright brothers that heavier than air flight is impossible? (Or, worse, the sort of person who pays for a scam “bomb sniffer” after a terrorist attack, or assumes Donald must be smart because he’s rich?)
It’s perfectly fine to answer a question with “I don’t know,” especially when your other option is “no, the emperor must have clothes on.”