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.
Gonna be real, imo 3.5% is bullshit, like 5% of the country participated in BLM and all it accomplished was trump lost reelection. Not saying stop but this shit isn’t magically over because 12 million people protest, there’s no magic number you hit and fascism is doneand we shouldn’t act like 12 million is it.
It has to be used the right way too. If you just hold a sign and go home then nothing changes. That’s the consensus building and demands phase. When you have critical mass and demands aren’t met you burn down police stations and setup autonomous zones. The problem with both of those wasn’t that they happened it was that the people fell for the media’s demonization of them.
You need 3.5% to be consistently, effectively engaged to cause change. That was the issue with BLM; there was no organized movement with concrete demands and a base willing to escalate. A more effective version of BLM would’ve called a general strike.
A more effective version of BLM would’ve called a general strike.
You can’t just call a general strike like it’s an I Win power in a video game.
How is BLM going to feed and pay rent for millions of strikers in this general strike? A general strike is a massive, resource intensive feat of logistics with many possible fail points that takes a long time planning to have any hope of success.
Especially since we’ve not had a general strike in over a generation, there’s a good chance it would fail and sour the prospects of doing a general strike in the future.
Also, BLM was a diffuse multi-regional movement with local goals and concrete demands. Defund police departments and end qualified immunity were consistent national goals.
Police were never defunded. Some cities facing a budget crisis cut a few percent from police budgets. Often, it was a lot less than they cut from libraries, parks, etc. This has nothing to do with anything BLM wanted.
I know that was not what BLM wanted. Im just pointing out the result of populist outcry that lacks a call to action in government policy. Words are nice but they are better when they are presented as legislation for change. Like the civil rights act.
There’s stopping Trump and then there’s stopping fascism. We can probably do the first one with a consistent 3-5% of support. Stopping fascism will take much more because it requires reworking our government and economy in ways that the right, at least, will vehemently oppose. Trump’s biggest blunder is doing too much too soon. His base wants fascism, they just wished it would be less painful than it is.
It needs to be constant protests in Washington DC, where a significant number of people don’t go home overnight.
Size does not matter, it’s fine to start with a few dozen people.
As seen elsewhere , it’s not important individuals stay, it’s important the total number of people coming and going keep up a total.
Volunteer rides can get people back and forth and deliver groceries, hygiene, supplies and the hundreds of other things needed for a constant presence.
It’s very possible to work, manage childcare, and participate. Can go on day off or half a day… can go once a month
I don’t understand how your question relates to my comment, you can go see the numbers of people who participated in BLM on Wikipedia its 15-26 million.
I’m not playing dumb weasely games about oh is trump realy racist or not, fuck outta here with that. He was sued over racial discrimination in his private life and his policies are actively erasing nonwhite people from the history of the United States as we speak.
im non native(German), its the first thing the dictionary gave me for “hervorrufen”… its the wrong word sorry. it somehow saw it as “einberufen” is my guess.
Im sorry if it sounded that way. That was not intended. I am not American and am interested in what ways the BLM movement has not affected the society.
There’s no good answer for this to someone who legitimately is curious but lacks even the most base knowledge of the topic. But the answer I give to seemingly good faith participants is to not come into an active conversation that’s already into the weeds and ask basic questions that could be answered by a simple Google search. Failure to do so will be seen as bad faith participation because this is the same tactic that bad faith participants use and it’s not worth the average person’s energy to dig through a profile to see whether or not they may be a good faith participant.
TLDR - If you don’t put in the effort before asking a basic question about a controversial topic, people likely won’t put forth the energy to engage in a productive manner when it appears you have not done so as well.
Gonna be real, imo 3.5% is bullshit, like 5% of the country participated in BLM and all it accomplished was trump lost reelection. Not saying stop but this shit isn’t magically over because 12 million people protest, there’s no magic number you hit and fascism is doneand we shouldn’t act like 12 million is it.
Yeah the researcher who came up with this so-called rule has said that it should not be used this way.
It’s a statistical association in the data, not a law of physics.
I just don’t want people to get disappointed and give up when the protests hit 3.5% and the fascist doesn’t leave.
It has to be used the right way too. If you just hold a sign and go home then nothing changes. That’s the consensus building and demands phase. When you have critical mass and demands aren’t met you burn down police stations and setup autonomous zones. The problem with both of those wasn’t that they happened it was that the people fell for the media’s demonization of them.
You need 3.5% to be consistently, effectively engaged to cause change. That was the issue with BLM; there was no organized movement with concrete demands and a base willing to escalate. A more effective version of BLM would’ve called a general strike.
You can’t just call a general strike like it’s an I Win power in a video game.
How is BLM going to feed and pay rent for millions of strikers in this general strike? A general strike is a massive, resource intensive feat of logistics with many possible fail points that takes a long time planning to have any hope of success.
Especially since we’ve not had a general strike in over a generation, there’s a good chance it would fail and sour the prospects of doing a general strike in the future.
Also, BLM was a diffuse multi-regional movement with local goals and concrete demands. Defund police departments and end qualified immunity were consistent national goals.
Defund the police was not my favorite. Now I have MAGA criminal running rampant and the police are infact defunded.
Get rid of trump is an easy message we can all agree on. With obvious political answers like we will remove members of congress by an means necessary.
Police were never defunded. Some cities facing a budget crisis cut a few percent from police budgets. Often, it was a lot less than they cut from libraries, parks, etc. This has nothing to do with anything BLM wanted.
I know that was not what BLM wanted. Im just pointing out the result of populist outcry that lacks a call to action in government policy. Words are nice but they are better when they are presented as legislation for change. Like the civil rights act.
Illiteracy is the primary problem here.
There’s stopping Trump and then there’s stopping fascism. We can probably do the first one with a consistent 3-5% of support. Stopping fascism will take much more because it requires reworking our government and economy in ways that the right, at least, will vehemently oppose. Trump’s biggest blunder is doing too much too soon. His base wants fascism, they just wished it would be less painful than it is.
If 3.5% can make a change, then 3.5% can also work in opposing that change.
3.5% can probably do it if such a change is unopposed. But it isn’t unopposed.
Organized, consistent and ya you’re right we probably need 10% of the country protesting by the summer.
Civili rights movement protests. not holding little signs and speeches.
It needs to be constant protests in Washington DC, where a significant number of people don’t go home overnight.
Size does not matter, it’s fine to start with a few dozen people.
As seen elsewhere , it’s not important individuals stay, it’s important the total number of people coming and going keep up a total.
Volunteer rides can get people back and forth and deliver groceries, hygiene, supplies and the hundreds of other things needed for a constant presence.
It’s very possible to work, manage childcare, and participate. Can go on day off or half a day… can go once a month
deleted by creator
Not denying your claim but also not positive per se, just a question:
Whats are the biggest injustices trump administration actively convoked against people with African American roots so far?
I don’t understand how your question relates to my comment, you can go see the numbers of people who participated in BLM on Wikipedia its 15-26 million.
I’m not playing dumb weasely games about oh is trump realy racist or not, fuck outta here with that. He was sued over racial discrimination in his private life and his policies are actively erasing nonwhite people from the history of the United States as we speak.
I just wanna know what they think “convoked” means.
It has the tone of some sovcit bullshit pseudo-legalese.
Reddit isn’t sending their best
I wish you the best in life
im non native(German), its the first thing the dictionary gave me for “hervorrufen”… its the wrong word sorry. it somehow saw it as “einberufen” is my guess.
Im sorry if it sounded that way. That was not intended. I am not American and am interested in what ways the BLM movement has not affected the society.
Isnt that your claim?
https://wondermark.com/c/1062/
Doesnt work for me, could you please screenshot. Would be very interested!
See also this and this for more information.
Oh I can see the problem, kinda I think?
I am seriously just unaware since I didn’t follow American news when BLM was happening.
If I’m interested, what should I do different?
There’s no good answer for this to someone who legitimately is curious but lacks even the most base knowledge of the topic. But the answer I give to seemingly good faith participants is to not come into an active conversation that’s already into the weeds and ask basic questions that could be answered by a simple Google search. Failure to do so will be seen as bad faith participation because this is the same tactic that bad faith participants use and it’s not worth the average person’s energy to dig through a profile to see whether or not they may be a good faith participant.
TLDR - If you don’t put in the effort before asking a basic question about a controversial topic, people likely won’t put forth the energy to engage in a productive manner when it appears you have not done so as well.