Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
Okay but who’s the one defining a protest as violent? You get enough people together and you’re going to have some aseholes that damage property but are the minority. If chocolate can have 5% bugs, then protests should be able to have 5% violence and still be called peaceful.
Or heck, if people react when police instigate, should that be called a violent protest?
This is an important question. I believe the research in question defined movements by the predominant tactic used, even if there was a small amount of violence.
So protests like the anti-ICE ones in LA would probably count as non-violent in the research.
Edit: Here is a more recent work by the same author that more directly engages with some of the questions and criticisms that emerged from their initial work the BBC article is discussing.
Okay but who’s the one defining a protest as violent?
The same people who write the history books. History is written by the winners, and when they write those books the protests that led to them winning are written up as being non-violent. It’s like “terrorists” vs. “freedom fighters”. If they succeed, they get to write the history books and they’re freedom fighters. If they lose, the other side writes the history books and they’re terrorists.
I assume you’re comparing this to rhetoric around cops. Cops are ideologically and organizationally unified with top down command structure and they protect one another even in cases of wrongdoing or violence.
Most modern protests are just random people who chose to show up. These are totally different situations.
Or how you presume there’s any conclusion or point. Just a silly observation. The two groups, protectors amd cops, are very related. It’s just a silly comparison. I’m not arguing any actual point.
Sensitive bunch. I’ve literally agreed with ACAB for a long time.
Okay but who’s the one defining a protest as violent? You get enough people together and you’re going to have some aseholes that damage property but are the minority. If chocolate can have 5% bugs, then protests should be able to have 5% violence and still be called peaceful.
Or heck, if people react when police instigate, should that be called a violent protest?
I’ll give you a hint, it rhymes with cocks
Socks?
And Birkenstocks
Rocks.
Docks!
Rocks?
The guys with Glocks? Agreed.
Cops are great at making any protest violent.
This is an important question. I believe the research in question defined movements by the predominant tactic used, even if there was a small amount of violence.
So protests like the anti-ICE ones in LA would probably count as non-violent in the research.
Edit: Here is a more recent work by the same author that more directly engages with some of the questions and criticisms that emerged from their initial work the BBC article is discussing.
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124128
The same people who write the history books. History is written by the winners, and when they write those books the protests that led to them winning are written up as being non-violent. It’s like “terrorists” vs. “freedom fighters”. If they succeed, they get to write the history books and they’re freedom fighters. If they lose, the other side writes the history books and they’re terrorists.
We can have a little violence. As a treat!
Are you arguing “it’s just a few bad apples” in defense of protests?
This is awkward.
I assume you’re comparing this to rhetoric around cops. Cops are ideologically and organizationally unified with top down command structure and they protect one another even in cases of wrongdoing or violence.
Most modern protests are just random people who chose to show up. These are totally different situations.
Of course they’re totally different. But it’s a funny comparison since the two groups are so related.
You’re right. We should fire the bad protestors.
And end qualified protestor immunity!
Bravo. I laughed. I just thought the initial comparison was silly.
Soros HR is no joke!
/s
What is awkward is how you failed to realize how insanely dumb and context-free your logic is to come to such an assinine conclusion…
Or how you presume there’s any conclusion or point. Just a silly observation. The two groups, protectors amd cops, are very related. It’s just a silly comparison. I’m not arguing any actual point.
Sensitive bunch. I’ve literally agreed with ACAB for a long time.