|
| ▲ | atmavatar 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Non-violent protests do work, though they require you hit a critical mass to become effective. There even exists a 3.5% rule[1] in political science whereby authoritarian governments will topple if 3.5% of the population engages in nonviolent protest. One of the more famous examples here in the US is that of the equal rights marches in the 1960s ultimately leading to the end of segregation. What I'm not sure of, though, is what kind of impact there is on the required percentage of people participating when we have media outlets like Fox News, which was demonstrated to have fabricated images during events like the Black Lives Matter protests to make them look as if they were violent. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule |
| |
| ▲ | danaris 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | While I agree with your basic premise, that 3.5% "rule" is much more of an observed effect than an actual rule. There needs to be an actual mechanism for the protests to bring about the fall of the authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, in our current context, a lot of the feedback mechanisms that should cause protests to change actual policy and affect the people in power are broken, largely due to the Republicans' efforts over the last several decades to eliminate accountability both from the actual institutions and as a valid concept in our national consciousness. |
|
|
| ▲ | nozzlegear 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Non-violent means don't work MLK Jr.'s Civil Rights protests are an obvious counterpoint to this claim. |
|
| ▲ | esalman 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you get killed by cops that does not necessarily mean the means are not working. All good things in life come at a sacrifice. |
| |
| ▲ | collingreen 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't necessarily mean it is working either though. Not all sacrifice needs to be all or nothing. |
|
|
| ▲ | globalnode 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| but violence doesnt work either, even if you conquer a whole nation (or social class or insert w/e here), you didnt really win and oneday they will get their revenge, so you're better off trying the non-violent way |
| |
| ▲ | slg 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Does anyone else see the disconnect between how Americans talk about our history compared to how we talk about political violence of today? How can we glorify Thomas Jefferson and teach kids about him saying "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" only to then condemn the spilling of any modern blood? Truly what is the difference between torching a warehouse of toilet paper compared to tossing some tea in the harbor? How can we condemn one and celebrate the other without being hypocrites? | | |
| ▲ | collingreen 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Propaganda and "history is written by the victors" Propaganda is the difference between rebels and freedom fighters. | |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think anyone should be glorifying Jefferson. You could have written L'Overture instead and it would have been a great example. |
| |
| ▲ | cindyllm 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
