this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
273 points (98.2% liked)

politics

22748 readers
3811 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Published 14 May 2019

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skiluros 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I wonder what our Revolution of Dignity would fall under.

At the peak, I believe Kyiv alone had 500K protesters (with many regional centres also being major protest hotspots). But we also had armed rebellion closer to the presidential office in Feb 2014.

In Chenoweth’s data set, it was only once the nonviolent protests had achieved that 3.5% threshold of active engagement that success seemed to be guaranteed – and raising even that level of support is no mean feat. In the UK it would amount to 2.3 million people actively engaging in a movement (roughly twice the size of Birmingham, the UK’s second largest city); in the US, it would involve 11 million citizens – more than the total population of New York City.

A quick search suggests US has twice achieved the 3.5% threshold, the record being in 2020 with the George Floyd protests (15M to 25M) and Earth Day in 1970 with 20M protesters (assuming this was the biggest US protest in recent history on a population adjusted level).

Perhaps the difference relative to other countries was that Americans didn't explicitly protest for removal of the existing regime.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Perhaps the difference relative to other countries was that Americans didn't explicitly protest for removal of the existing regime.

No, it's that the 3.5% rule requires that those 3.5% be consistently engaged and willing to escalate, and BLM was not that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

willing to escalate, and BLM was not that.

I live in Portland OR so I know that's not true.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

What kind of escalation happened? Afaik the whole thing stalled with spontaneous protests and riots.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah but they weren’t consistently engaged.

[–] Skiluros 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Willingness to keep protesting and commitment does seem to be critical as per successful global examples.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Keep protesting yes, but also escalate either in degree or kind if it doesn't work. The moment you stall you lose the game, yet for example I'm not hearing of any politically—rather than purely economically—motivated strikes.