• jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 day ago

    Based on the article “no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed” has the caveat of “we only look at 3 of them, and those 3 worked”.

    So their overall sample size is small, and the 3.5% sample size is just 3. Further, those 3 had no idea someone in the vague future would retroactively measure their participation to declare it a rock solid threshold.

    I think the broader takeaway is that number of people seems to matter more than degree of violence, and violence seems to alienate people that might have otherwise participated.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      Also, the “no violence” thing has a LOT to do with what the mobilizing group is trying to accomplish.

      Changing policies and ousting leadership that isn’t performing? Hell yeah, peaceful marches and protests all the way.

      Want to remove a hostile and oppressive militarized regime? That shit is NEVER pretty, and turns even the best of people into monsters by necessity.

      • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        feels awfully close second one… especially now that i found out they’re deputizing bounty hunters to impersonate federal officers, with masks on… and paying them >$1,000 per brown person they kidnap…
        i mean i knew it something extra odd was happening but a lot of these guys are contractors… and ofc white supremacists…