this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
819 points (79.2% liked)

You Should Know

39000 readers
1074 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.

Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.

Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.

If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.

Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
ja2@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
819
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 (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world to c/youshouldknow@lemmy.world
362 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

The problem with the statement from the title is that a non-violent movement that big won't happen in many countries, or sometimes won't happen without turning violent. Both should be accounted for when talking about this.

I've been fed up with logic, common sense and such as opposed to stats at some point, because I was mostly reading ancap stuff and ancaps are a bit too detached in that direction.

But it's rightfully said often that throwing stats is just another kind of lies. Interpreting statistics is too complex, most people can't do that, common sense and logic are indeed more important.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Data presented to you by BBC the same network that lied to you about WMS in Iraq, genocide of the Palestinians people, and most likely more.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

Yes, they leave out that the protests work because they are displays of very large amounts of people who, while peaceful now, they have reason to believe can become violent. Without being backed by the threat of violence, or seen as a diplomatic out to a movement that is, otherwise, violent, they don't really work.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 2 points 32 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 minutes ago

I have read a number of things, over the years, discussing essentially this. They were always recalling historical movements to make their case, not so data driven. Thank you for the paper.

[–] Corn@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Also all their examples of non-violent successes had violent factions demonstrating the alternative.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

correct, and in those cases they saw that there was an important group within the movement they could have a diplomatic out with, and they decided to take it before it was all violence

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 17 points 7 hours ago

That statistic only works if the government cares what we think. Voters have trained politicians that they can do whatever they want with no repercussions. Therefore, they do not need to care what we think.

[–] EldenLord@lemmy.world 37 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Non-violent protests still need to come with a credible threat of becoming violent if the protesters' safety is being attacked or if their human rights are compromised.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's a social contract basically: we will be peaceful as long as you allow us to remain peaceful.

[–] EldenLord@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, basically the individual gives up their sovereign monopoly of violence to the state in exchange for protection and representation through the constitution. Break that contract and people have the moral right to oppose "legal" violence carried out through a dictatorship.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 18 minutes ago

I agree broadly with the idea that the state's legitimacy relies on the appearance that they wield their violence justly, but I think you're giving the state too much credit when you frame it as a fair and considered exchange of power.

The state has had all of us under its purview since birth, it has pumped us full of pro-hierarchy, anti-autonomy, anti-social propaganda and it wields its violence more to prevent insurgency than it does to protect us.

There is no "social contract", nothing that I ever signed anyway, and even if there were, contract law invalidates any contract signed under duress. The concept of the social contract is just yet more hierarchical propaganda. It's a vague, handwavey vibe to obscure the fact that we really aren't given a meaningful option to leave.

The state relies on not just the appearance of legitimacy, but the appearance of absolute power. Both are illusions, and can be opposed by organised people directly building mutual aid on the ground. The more we meet one another's needs for security the less we need the state and the more people can see it for the charade that it is.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Er... Hong Kong?

[–] Googledotcom@lemm.ee 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Hong Kong wasn’t at or above 3.5% of Chinese population

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

"more likely" not "will work"

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 37 points 12 hours ago

Considering the UK's biggest export is independence days, it's kind of hard to think that all of those were solved through non violent means.

[–] threeganzi@sh.itjust.works 50 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

Tell that to Hong Kong demonstrators on June 16, 2019, estimated by organizers at 2 million people marching. Hong Kong had a population of 7.5 million at the time.

Sure there was violence both before and after that protest, but mostly caused by violent crackdown by police.

But did it fail because there was violence or was violence a sign of stronger opposition? Causation vs correlation and all that.

[–] Googledotcom@lemm.ee 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Hong Kong wasn’t at or above 3.5% of Chinese population

[–] threeganzi@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 44 minutes ago) (1 children)

I think we’re all aware. And Hong Kong isn’t (wasn’t) China in terms of governance(“one country, two systems”). China broke the deal it made with UK, which said Hong Kong would be autonomous until 2048, after which it would be incorporated into China.

But you’re right, not much to do when China claims authority and no one defends its right to free speech, democracy and autonomy.

Edit: added some need nuance on the “one country, two systems”.

[–] Googledotcom@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

China is as always a big Israel full of submissive but cunning cucks

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe they needed 3.5% of China? Since the repression was imposed from outside of the city its happening in a larger context than just the local demographics.

[–] threeganzi@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah it seems to be the case as China didn’t respect the deal it made with UK to leave Hong Kong autonomous. If 3.5% of China did that it would most likely be a blood bath, be it a violent or non-violent protest.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 59 points 16 hours ago (6 children)

So how do you keep the police from making it violent?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Cattail@lemmy.world 28 points 14 hours ago

there has to be a big ass asterisk on his post. generally things like the civil rights movement got partially undone and then success can be nebulous since even in a movement there are subset of goals that might not have been achieved

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 32 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

sure, BBC. tell us how youd like us to express our dissatisfaction.

the fact msm is doing this so desperately rn 🤔

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago

The MSM just fear an orange reprisal. They're also pandering to the middle of the ground voters.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 73 points 18 hours ago (13 children)

American Revolution. French Revolution. Iranian Revolution.

Just a few very violent, and successful, revolutions.

[–] Hawanja@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Who's going to fight in your violent revolution? You? We couldn't even get all the people who voted for Biden to Vote for Kamala. Right now a large portion of African Americans are refusing to join the protest movement against encroaching fascism because Trump is somehow a "white people problem." How do you think a revolutionary army or even an insurrection of sufficient strength to challenge the United States Government would ever take hold when there is zero solidarity among the left? We can't even get people to vote in their own interest, let alone support a violent revolution. This is pure fantasy.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›