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?
Okay but who’s the one defining a protest as violent?
From the article
Perhaps most obviously, violent protests necessarily exclude people who abhor and fear bloodshed, whereas peaceful protesters maintain the moral high ground.
Chenoweth points out that nonviolent protests also have fewer physical barriers to participation. You do not need to be fit and healthy to engage in a strike, whereas violent campaigns tend to lean on the support of physically fit young men. And while many forms of nonviolent protests also carry serious risks – just think of China’s response in Tiananmen Square in 1989 – Chenoweth argues that nonviolent campaigns are generally easier to discuss openly, which means that news of their occurrence can reach a wider audience. Violent movements, on the other hand, require a supply of weapons, and tend to rely on more secretive underground operations that might struggle to reach the general population.
Violent protests seems to mean a violent campaign of armed, planned attacks.
I doubt that would include unplanned outbreaks of violence from people not organized for that purpose.
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.
YES, protesters are freely associating members of the general public, whereas the police are vetted and trained professionals, payed by taxes to “uphold the law”.
They should be held to a higher standard!
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?
Rocks.
Docks!
And Birkenstocks
It’s it wrong to throw rocks when people are shooting you with rubber bullets?
The guys with Glocks? Agreed.
Cops are great at making any protest violent.
From the article
Violent protests seems to mean a violent campaign of armed, planned attacks.
I doubt that would include unplanned outbreaks of violence from people not organized for that purpose.
We can have a little violence. As a treat!
I don’t want to ask about the chocolate
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.
Are you arguing “it’s just a few bad apples” in defense of protests?
This is awkward.
YES, protesters are freely associating members of the general public, whereas the police are vetted and trained professionals, payed by taxes to “uphold the law”.
They should be held to a higher standard!
Well duh. Just was kind of funny.
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.