YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x more likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed
YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x more likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Yeah, look at the Iraq war protests, they didn't amount to anything because they were peaceful and easily ignored by the media.
This was going to be my counterexample too. Millions protested in the US, UK, Australia, and elsewhere before any troops were committed and it still didn't help. I dont have solid numbers but I'd be shocked if less than 3.5% of people were involved. They were the biggest protests ever at the time.
Claims without any supporting evidence aren't that interesting.
Edit: OP changed his post after I called him out for not referencing any sources
How to blow up a pipeline has a chapter on the topic.
You can also read the original book and check the examples.
P.C. this is article about the fourth mentioned protest in the article, and literally the second paragraph is about clashes. There are 11 casualties during this series of protests.
But you knew that with your high standards of verifying information right?
I'm not the one making claims. If you want to make a claim cite a source.
The article also made claims. Did you check them?