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.

This refers to Chenoweth's research, and I'm somewhat familiar with their work. I think it's good to clarify what non-violent means to them, as it's non-obvious. For example, are economic boycotts violence? They harm businesses and keep food of the tables of workers. I don't think that's violence, but some people do, and what really matters here is what Chenoweth thinks violence is, and what they mean when they say "nonviolent tactics are more effective".

At the end of "civil resistance: what everyone needs to know", Chenoweth lists a number of campaigns which they've marked as violent/nonviolent and successful/unsuccessful. Let's look at them and the tactics employed tonfigure out what exactly Chenoweth is advocating for. Please do not read this as a condemnation of their work, or of the protests that follow. This is just an investigation into what "nonviolence" means to Chenoweth.

Euromaidan: successful, nonviolent. In these protests, protestors threw molotov cocktails and bricks and at the police. I remember seeing a video of an apc getting absolutely melted by 10 or so molotovs cocktails.

The anti-Pinochet campaign: successful, nonviolent. This involved at least one attempt on Pinochet's life.

Gwangju uprising in South Korea: unsuccessful, nonviolent. Car plowed into police officers, 4 dead.

Anti-Duvalier campaign in Haiti: successful, nonviolent. Destruction of government offices.

To summarize, here's some means that are included in Chenoweth's research:

• throwing bricks at the police
• throwing molotov cocktails at the police
• assassination attempts
• driving a car into police officers
• destroying government offices

The point here is not that these protests were wrong, they weren't. The point is that they employed violent tactics in the face of state violence. Self-defense is not violence, and this article completely ignores this context, and heavily and knowingly implies that sitting in a circle and singing kumbaya is the way to beat oppression. It isn't.

Idk, that French deal seemed to work out pretty well.

George Floyd protests had more than that (closer to 8%) and they didn't really change anything.

As a catalan actively involved in the 2012-2017 push for independence, I call bullshit.

That's horseshit made up statistics.
Way more than 6% want single payer, but it's not happening.

Bogus unsupported stats

A lot of violent protests have succeeded too. Such as the suffragettes gaining the right to vote for women or unions gaining the right to exist, and the 8 hour work day.

Data presented to you by BBC the same network that lied to you about WMS in Iraq, genocide of the Palestinians people, and most likely more.

The problem when it comes to the current situation in the US, is that these protests already came baked in to the Project 2025 plan from the start.

They're not going to change their minds on anything as a result of the protests because they already knew there'd be mass protests before Trump signed a single order.

Non-violent protests still need to come with a credible threat of becoming violent if the protesters' safety is being attacked or if their human rights are compromised.

Tell that to Hong Kong demonstrators on June 16, 2019, estimated by organizers at 2 million people marching. Hong Kong had a population of 7.5 million at the time.

Sure there was violence both before and after that protest, but mostly caused by violent crackdown by police.

But did it fail because there was violence or was violence a sign of stronger opposition? Causation vs correlation and all that.

So how do you keep the police from making it violent?

Considering the UK's biggest export is independence days, it's kind of hard to think that all of those were solved through non violent means.

American Revolution. French Revolution. Iranian Revolution.

Just a few very violent, and successful, revolutions.

That statistic only works if the government cares what we think. Voters have trained politicians that they can do whatever they want with no repercussions. Therefore, they do not need to care what we think.

In a capitalist system, all protests are violent because the capitalist system is violent by definition.

As long as we industrially murder people all around the globe, protests have not been successfull.

And nobody cares if women got the right to vote in this system. Its like making a party about women being able to join the NSDAP.

We are imperialist. We need to be stopped by any means necessary.

sure, BBC. tell us how youd like us to express our dissatisfaction.

the fact msm is doing this so desperately rn 🤔

my fucking ass 👅🥾

Bolsheviks, Stonewall riots, suffragettes, all famously peaceful movements that got their rights by staying on their knees and asking nicely.

Let me know what all the peaceful protests on climate change did leading up to and since the Paris Agreement.

Civil disobedience, including violent action, absolutely has a place in changing the policy of the state.

there has to be a big ass asterisk on his post. generally things like the civil rights movement got partially undone and then success can be nebulous since even in a movement there are subset of goals that might not have been achieved

General strikes accomplish a fuck of a lot more in a shorter amount of time. When the owners of the administration can't get their poptarts to the stores to be sold, the bank calls their loans and shit gets real.

Why Civil Resistance Works the book that 2x figure comes from has some major controversy about cherry picking data as well as playing with the definition of peaceful protest.

If peaceful protests worked (as good as this article suggestions) the BBC wouldn't be writing about them.

Er... Hong Kong?

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.