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.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
879 points (78.8% liked)
You Should Know
39036 readers
1150 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
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.
It's a social contract basically: we will be peaceful as long as you allow us to remain peaceful.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Er... Hong Kong?
Hong Kong wasn’t at or above 3.5% of Chinese population
"more likely" not "will work"
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.
Hong Kong wasn’t at or above 3.5% of Chinese population
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”.
China is as always a big Israel full of submissive but cunning cucks
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.
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.
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.
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
sure, BBC. tell us how youd like us to express our dissatisfaction.
the fact msm is doing this so desperately rn 🤔
The MSM just fear an orange reprisal. They're also pandering to the middle of the ground voters.
American Revolution. French Revolution. Iranian Revolution.
Just a few very violent, and successful, revolutions.
load more comments
(13 replies)
General strikes accomplish a fuck of a lot more in a shorter amount of time. When the owners of the administration can't get their poptarts to the stores to be sold, the bank calls their loans and shit gets real.
Right after Covid ended, the nurses in the NYC hospitals decided that after being so heroic for over a year, they deserved raises, and some other benefits. The hospitals flat-out refused anything.
The nurses went on strike. Within 72 hours, every single one of their demands was met, including a fat raise.
Unions and strikes work.
Yeah, too many people keep acting like "hold up a sign" and "start shooting" are the only two political actions possible. There is a vast array of disruptions and threats to the status quo that do not require violence.
Yeah, too many people keep acting like “hold up a sign” and “start shooting” are the only two political actions possible.
For people in at-will employment states, it can certainly feel like that. If you're the only one who actually strikes, you get fired.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
my fucking ass 👅🥾
Bolsheviks, Stonewall riots, suffragettes, all famously peaceful movements that got their rights by staying on their knees and asking nicely.
load more comments
(19 replies)
It's about resistance, not violence per we. Choosing the right kind of resistance for the situation is how change is made. Non violent protesting is for raising awareness and building solidarity. Violence is purely for defense and to show when a line has been crossed. Otherwise your movement will just become the next police state regime, if it doesn't get crushed outright. People advocating for violence on social media are either bots or bad faith actors trying to stop the movement. Anyone seriously considering violence against the state sure as shit aren't posting about it on Lemmy.
I'd say that being distruptive is what we should be discussing about. Strikes or boycotts, when organized well, can be examples of non-violent can actually work, while holding a sign in a park doesn't do anything.
Agree. But also, holding a sign in a park with 20 other people that you coordinated with is not nothing. It's community building and solidarity, which are both essential.
Let me know what all the peaceful protests on climate change did leading up to and since the Paris Agreement.
Civil disobedience, including violent action, absolutely has a place in changing the policy of the state.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Name one non-violent protest that changed the material conditions of those protesting, I'll wait.
The 1989 East German monday demonstrations.
load more comments
(18 replies)
We're at that point and yet has Trump been impeached for denying due process and trying to create a process with ice to deport people without a trial to a foreign prison for life? Or for blatantly ignoring orders from federal courts and the Supreme Court?
Until Trump is in prison or tried for his crimes this article doesn't sway my opinion at all. Fact is too many loopholes exist in the rule of law in the usa. Only way to fix it is creating a new government with a new constitution. The executive branch as it is has way too much power consolidated. The current form of government cant go on as it is. Especially because of how much money and bribery is now involved.
I dont see this being resolved peacefully. Fascists never go peacefully. NEVER
Non violent protests work on a platform of sympathy, violence is fear, a lot of people lack any sympathy for no kings protests and those against it don't seem to fear it
How are you going to demand change when a ragtag militia force can stop it?
load more comments
(1 replies)
There's a book on the subject written by Srdja Popovic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_for_Revolution
Summary: protests that start (and try to remain) non-violent have a greater chance to succeed, because they can attract more people to their cause.
Critique: with some regimes, it's not possible to non-violently protest. For non-violent protest to work, the environment must respect a minimum amount of human rights.
Case samples:
- US during the civil rights movement era: yes
- USSR under Gorbachev: yes
- Serbia under Milosevic: yes, with difficulty on every step (Popovic was there doing it)
- Israel under Netanyahu: probably yes
- China under Xi: practically no (not for long)
- USSR under Kruschev/Brezhnev/Andropov/Chernenko: not really
- Russia under Putin: no, don't even hold a blank sheet of paper
- Iran under Khamenei: only if you're doing a bread riot
- Saudi Arabia, USSR under Stalin, NK under the Kim dynasty: no, and execution would be a possible outcome
...etc. In some places, you can't organize. Then your only option is to fight. As long as you can publicly organize, definitely do so - it's vastly preferable. :)
load more comments
(59 replies)