I honestly cant recall seeing any peaceful protest accomplishing anything of significance in my lifetime. Most successful protests I hear about are the French lighting up Paris when they try to raise the retirement age. They just try again 2 years later though.
YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed
Submitted 3 months ago by MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world to youshouldknow@lemmy.world
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
Comments
fdnomad@programming.dev 3 months ago
merc@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Keep Goodhart’s law in mind:
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
While this is obviously not true. It is hilarious seeing that some comments call bullshit on this while thinking that violent protests have any better chance to succeed.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
I believe that a non-significant number of them are pushing an agenda.
arin@lemmy.world 3 months ago
All i know is what happened in Germany
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 3 months ago
Yeah. 3.5% would be about 2.8m people. This number has been exceeded easily last year when the AfD scandal happened. Absolutely fucking nothing happened.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
How in the world did you derive those numbers? How do you even quantify that in practice?
Also, of course British State Media is going to discourage violent protests.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
I would encourage you to read the actual research. It’s all documented there.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
You don’t actually have any idea how they derived those numbers, do you?
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
“This was partly the result of strength in numbers. Chenoweth argues that nonviolent campaigns are more likely to succeed because they can recruit many more participants from a much broader demographic, which can cause severe disruption that paralyses normal urban life and the functioning of society.”
In other words, violent protests work better, but they lack the amount of people.
nullpotential@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The problem with the statement from the title is that a non-violent movement that big won’t happen in many countries, or sometimes won’t happen without turning violent. Both should be accounted for when talking about this.
I’ve been fed up with logic, common sense and such as opposed to stats at some point, because I was mostly reading ancap stuff and ancaps are a bit too detached in that direction.
But it’s rightfully said often that throwing stats is just another kind of lies. Interpreting statistics is too complex, most people can’t do that, common sense and logic are indeed more important.
lordnikon@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Also non violent protests turn violent because the opposition embed bad actors to create the violence or counter protest pushes people to violence out of self defense.
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
No man it was all the lawsuits and SLAMMING headlines.
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 months ago
If that were true, what happens if two different non violent movements each with more than 3.5% of the population involved, exist at the same time in direct opposition to eachother?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Democratic peace theory happens and they talk it out.
glitchdx@lemmy.world 3 months ago
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 3 months ago
Square for doubt?!! I was wrong thinking it was cross for doubt?
glitchdx@lemmy.world 3 months ago
idk, it was the first result for “doubt meme” for me.
destructdisc@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Take your liberal propaganda and stuff it
psx_crab@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
Non-violent protest kinda imply that the receiving end doesn’t react violently ehh. If they start sending riot police and water tank then it would 100% spiral.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 months ago
How many of those were backed by much more powerful foreign powers?
the_q@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
Still waiting on you “violence is the only way” crowd to do some violence.
ramenshaman@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I don’t think we’re there yet.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That second part is encouraging.
DomeGuy@lemmy.world 3 months 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 months 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.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
🙄
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The average person doesn’t like violent civil unrest, shocking.
Also, I bet you can mess with the numbers to mean about anything you want by changing what classifies as “violent”. A lot of people include property destruction in their definition of violence. But a lot of other people don’t and only consider that property damage.
mrodri89@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
Also there was a study done of what outcomes violent protests have. You think you’re going to make things better but usually violently instilled governments aren’t good people no matter if you’re left or right.
You end up instilling another extreme regime for the one you initially wanted to fight.
annie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago