According to the often-cited 3.5% rule, if 3.5% of a population protests against a regime, the regime will fail. Developed by political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, who researched civil resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006, the rule has seen renewed interest in leftist circles recently, especially with No Kings protests attracting historic numbers.
…
This shows the outsize impact a single protester can have, the study’s authors say. That’s because having one more attender at a demonstration rallies more support for a political cause than acquiring one more vote during an election does.
…
In the context of civil rights, the movement’s ability to elicit violence from its opponents – such as in 1965, when armed police violently attacked peaceful protesters crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama – only strengthened public support for the cause. “When the state is perceived as engaging in excess use of force, that tends to generate very sympathetic coverage, and that drives concern,” explained Wasow.
I love this fallacy, because then it means governments support enriching civilians, and are actually servants of the public will. How else would they know their demands haven’t been already met?
Next you’re going to explain why hate crimes, libel, and slander aren’t suppressed equally.
That was just completely incoherent. I have no earthly idea what you were trying to convey here.
Neither do you it seems.
Why would a government made of representatives you elect suppress something you elected?
Neither do I what? You see what I mean, that doesn’t make any sense?
A government made of Representatives you elect oppress something you elected? What? That doesn’t make any sense. Not the concept, whatever that may be, the sentence doesn’t make sense.
Wait, are you not aware how your government works?