Given all the events happening, this is a reminder that peaceful protests are the key to change. We are all angry, we are all sad for the people and families being violently attacked, and it is hard to stay cool and calm, but violence reciprocity is not the answer. Channeling Gandhi, and MLK, both who change nations by absorbing violence and standing in their way. Show how they lost the moral high ground, and DO NOT RECIPROCATE!
Also it works:
There are key parameters to the 3.5 percent rule according to Chenoweth. The “figure is a descriptive statistic based on a sample of historical movements.” Thus, it is not necessarily a hard-and-fast law, but rather a solid predictor. Remarkably, most mass nonviolent movements that succeeded did so even without reaching the 3.5 percent threshold. Moreover, durable nonviolent movements are twice as likely to succeed as violent campaigns because people generally reject violence. The 3.5 percent rule does not rely on cumulative participation, but rather participation at a peak event, which usually means a mass nonviolent demonstration. And the demands for change must achieve success within one year as a result of the mobilization.
...
For everyday Americans wishing to actively object to the government’s slide toward authoritarian policies, the 3.5 percent rule is a motivational yardstick to measure the likely result of peaceful mobilization.
People-powered movements can increase the chances of pressuring the government to meet their demands, including by building broad, sustained public participation across diverse groups. This is especially true because authoritarian-minded governments try to divide the population and keep them afraid of defiance. When 3.5 percent of a population goes beyond protest to engage in peaceful civil disobedience and noncooperation, these actions disrupt the system and force governmental change. For example, general strikes that affect the economy, boycotts, sit-ins, walkouts, or shutdowns of parts of cities can put unavoidable pressure on political leaders to hear their constituents and resolve the matter.
Chenoweth also states that 3.5 percent participation strongly indicates that there is much deeper support of the movement across society and a sense of inevitability, which can translate into defections from key pillars on the government’s side. For example, leaders from the economic, business, political, cultural, and media sectors become more likely to shift their allegiance to the side of a broad nonviolent mobilization. Perhaps most importantly, effective mobilizations can cause vital defections from police and military forces as well as the members of the political party in power.
So to reiterate:
...People-powered movements are more successful when they can strategically build a broad tent across the political spectrum, avoid violence, and remain relentlessly disciplined. Sharing the risks of defiance, Americans committed to pro-democracy principles can shift the current balance of power and change the trajectory of the nation.
I’m going to poke a few holes into this. I have no references, so take this as personal opinions that may or may not be accurate.
That 3.5 percent needs the support of a far greater number of the population; passive , active and logistical support is needed from about 1/3 the population.
We are nowhere near 1/3 of the people wishing such stuff.
Most politically active people in the USA who think this is a good idea have absolutely no idea how to implement the above.
And those that do have an idea struggle against the second issue: that these things are not organized from the internet, or have a command structure, but are made up of thousands of like minded groups who self organize.
Spontaneous organizing where people meet each other face to face is currently rare. Most USA neighborhoods do not have much that help with that. What was done in the civil rights era could not be done today
Have you done any kind of investigation to confirm this? Cause as somebody that is organizing in the real world I can say that you are making some really big assumptions that seem to be based in a very specific population, if they are based in reality at all, which does not begin to account for the 2/3rds of folks in this country that, for whatever reason, whether or not you agree with their values or recognize the validity of their tactics or whatever, did not cast their vote for Trump.
None of what you're saying has proved to be true in my experience. Not everyone is as online as you are. You cannot allow internet narratives to make you so apathetic that you defeat yourself before you've even started.
America isn't special or exceptional. What we are doing has been done before. What Trump is doing has been done before. History has given us a roadmap for how to move forward. Yes it has to be fluid, yes it's going to look different in each and every locale, yes some groups and tactics are going to struggle more than others to find their footing, but the movement is making steady progress and gets stronger with each person that struggles alongside us. Minneapolis has just accomplished the largest general strike in 80 years, in subzero temperatures, literally as you're sitting around in the comfort of your desk chair talking about how what they're doing is impossible and too online to happen in the real world.
I'm so sick of this keyboard defeatism. It's like watching a football fan talk like they know more about how the game should/can be played than the coach and players on the field. If you aren't on the ground struggling with us, if you aren't plugged into any of the orgs making this progress possible, please kindly do not speculate as if you know your head from your ass when it comes to the state of US organizing.
I think there is a reason that the current political scene is so static. I see nothing has been done for over a generation. It takes no special abilities or skill to be old and see generational shifts in neighborhood politics and how leftist groups have floundered.
Simply put, there can be no change because not enough people go to church, or engage in other community activities. And there will be no change until something gets people out to socialize more with their neighbors
I highly recommend reading some of the paper, listening to a podcast where they talk about the rule, or watch her TEDx. Chenoweth addresses some of the challenges you put forth, if not directly, in the context of what she's researched.
And yes, there ate issues with it, but not to the degree which make something to disregard. It's a rule of thumb which will help us make the change we seek. Think of it as hope.