• jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    people need to stop quoting that 3% nonsense. its not 3% of the population chanting and waving signs that trigger change. its violence, either economic, property or physical. you’re not going to accomplish anything until you start breaking shit. and from i’ve seen people in the US are no where near the state of being willing to do that.

    • RootAccess@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The 3.5% rule is a concept in political science that states that when 3.5% of the population of a country protest nonviolently against a government, that government is likely to fall from power. The rule was formulated by Erica Chenoweth in 2013. It arose out of insights originally published by political scientist Mark Lichbach in 1995 in his book The Rebel’s Dilemma: Economics, Cognition, and Society.

      Non-Violent

      • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m well aware of it. sorry but basically every instance of a government falling from power have substantial violent elements operating simultaneously with the non-violent. just quoting ‘if we 3.5% of the population’ gets you no where. we already have 3.5% of the population against trump/gop. the problem is you twits dont know how to protest effectively.

        • RootAccess@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s funny that in 2025 people still think that just saying shit on the internet means anything.

          Sources, or stfu dude.

          • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.

            Sources for ineffective protests: please attend any no kings protest and you’ll see what i mean. Words words words, and not a single action being promoted.

            Sources for violence: pick a movement. Will find the violent aspects. But lets use gandhi as an initial example

            If you think just having 3.5% of the populations support is sufficient you’re an idiot. You need that support to be willing to do something that negatively impacts society, strikes, sit ins, property damage, etc.

            You’ll note the distinct lack of actual activity against trump. People are more interested in waving signs and listening to people talk than actuall doing anything.

            Then you twats run around screeching 3.5% is all we need! God you’re all idiots. At least start fucking striking. Someones notices a numerical value and you twits think the number is magical all on its own completely disassociating it from actual context.