Fat hurts wrote:
agip wrote:
couple things -
1/ I'm just explaining what the trumpers think...they are, all in all, stupid and ignorant so they are usually wrong.
2/ That said, if the 3% were to include influential people in DC and the armed forces...it probably would be enough. Guns are powerful political tools. Would you go fight the national guard if it went trumpist? Not sure I would, and I'm armed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_PercentersI think the 3% thing actually comes from the work of Erica Chenoweth at Harvard. Her research showed two things:
1. Non-violent movements succeeded more often than violent ones.
2. Every campaign that got active participation from at least 3.5 percent of the population eventually succeeded.
It's something that is often discussed in activist circles on both the left and the right.
"The 323 cases studied by Chenoweth involved “resistance to repressive regimes or occupations, or in support of secession” — in other words, they involved resistance to regimes that actively invoked domestic violence against opposition forces, which therefore drew on an already existing groundswell of discontent. Not only did very few of these cases involve overthrow of a democracy, none of them involved successful nonviolent efforts to overthrow or change a Western liberal democracy."
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-10-31/the-flawed-social-science-behind-extinction-rebellions-change-strategy/