4 ms·

It's frankly astounding to me how these people can fall for their own bullshit. Really? No protest with over 3.5% of the population has ever failed? Really? I

by djbebs 4y ago

It's frankly astounding to me how these people can fall for their own bullshit. Really? No protest with over 3.5% of the population has ever failed? Really? I can think of 2 of the top of my head, the Catalonia independence protests and referendum, and the Hong Kong protests. In both cases there was a significantly higher portion than 3.5% actively protesting, and what was the result? I dont see an independent Hong Kong or Catalunya anywhere, do you? The fact of the matter is that violence is the Supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. A protest where non-violence is guaranteed from the outset is a losing proposition against any determined opponent, and when protesting about things that matter that opponent will always be determined. I suppose that a better outcome for this study would be "in matters where the outcome has no significant impact on the decision makers, a 3.5% threshold is sufficient to enact a change in the status quo". Congrats, you spent all that effort and resources to get the political equivalent of a paint job.

michael1999 4y ago
Hong Kong is a drop in the ocean of China, not even 1%. The numerator doesn’t get to choose the denominator. I don’t have a sense for the Catalonian crisis. What fraction of the 7m Catalonians were active vs the 49m of Spain? I suspect not much more than 3-4%
- hansvm 4y ago
  That feels like a moving goalpost. When your >3.5% protest fails, just redefine the denominator to make it <=3.5%.
  - sporkland 4y ago
    It may feel that way but I think the commenter hit the nail on the head. The 3.5% of the population that the ruling group cares a out isn't 3.5% of some cities pop or even regions pop. It's all their constituents. I wonder if Hong Kong and Catalan had broad support outside of their local region if the outcome would be difference. I wonder about the Scottish independence movement. Brexit could be an example where it was much higher than 3.5% but the outcome was close to the other direction.
    - hnfong 4y ago
      I think both of you are "wrong". I'll explain. The original trigger for the Hong Kong 2019 protests was a bill that allowed the government to approve ad-hoc extraditions to any other jurisdiction. On the surface this bill was 100% within the affairs of the local HKSAR government, and nobody in other parts of China was affected or really gave a damn whether it passed or not. Carrie Lam, then Chief Executive, tried to get the bill passed by pulling Beijing into the picture. Given the tensions between Beijing and the common Hong Kong people at the time, it quickly escalated to a "national security" issue. Note that, eventually, the original proposed extradition bill died a slow painful death. The original bill was a local issue, it failed, and hence the 3.5% rule held. (Hence it is incorrect to state that the protest failed. It wasn't a complete failure in this sense. Pyrrhic victory though.) The independence movement (if you can call it that) obviously failed and protesters were rounded up by the hundreds (lots of riots trials pending). I don't know whether the failure is just due to the huge denominator of the whole Chinese population though. It's certainly a factor, but if you ask me, the stakeholders are not only all the Chinese people, but also international forces that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo in Hong Kong. Much like how the stance of USA influences Taiwan's status.
- maxbond 4y ago
  If the model is that nonviolent protest is always effective if we cross a certain threshold, but that every citizen of Hong Kong could be in the streets without crossing that threshold, this model is meaningless. Nonviolent protests are critical and can absolutely bring about change, but it is a brutal and drawn out process and not some kind of magic bullet.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    By that same metric, the same holds true for violent protests. Some protests are doomed regardless of if they are violent or not. Some can only succeed if they are violent, some can only succeed if they are nonviolent. I am not aware of any successful violent protests. I know of some violent revolutions, but if you go there, you better make sure you can actually compete with the opposition.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I must have expressed myself badly. I believe that, if you're engaged in a violent revolution, you have already failed; you will recapitulate the status quo, should you gain control of society. This is why I described nonviolent protest as critical. When I said the process was brutal, it was because nonviolent movements will be opposed brutally, not because brutality is any sort of virtue. I was making a more nuanced point about this particular conversation, perhaps one that didn't really need to be made.

by djbebs 4y ago

michael1999 4y ago

Hong Kong is a drop in the ocean of China, not even 1%. The numerator doesn’t get to choose the denominator. I don’t have a sense for the Catalonian crisis. What fraction of the 7m Catalonians were active vs the 49m of Spain? I suspect not much more than 3-4%

hansvm 4y ago
That feels like a moving goalpost. When your >3.5% protest fails, just redefine the denominator to make it <=3.5%.
- sporkland 4y ago
  It may feel that way but I think the commenter hit the nail on the head. The 3.5% of the population that the ruling group cares a out isn't 3.5% of some cities pop or even regions pop. It's all their constituents. I wonder if Hong Kong and Catalan had broad support outside of their local region if the outcome would be difference. I wonder about the Scottish independence movement. Brexit could be an example where it was much higher than 3.5% but the outcome was close to the other direction.
  - hnfong 4y ago
    I think both of you are "wrong". I'll explain. The original trigger for the Hong Kong 2019 protests was a bill that allowed the government to approve ad-hoc extraditions to any other jurisdiction. On the surface this bill was 100% within the affairs of the local HKSAR government, and nobody in other parts of China was affected or really gave a damn whether it passed or not. Carrie Lam, then Chief Executive, tried to get the bill passed by pulling Beijing into the picture. Given the tensions between Beijing and the common Hong Kong people at the time, it quickly escalated to a "national security" issue. Note that, eventually, the original proposed extradition bill died a slow painful death. The original bill was a local issue, it failed, and hence the 3.5% rule held. (Hence it is incorrect to state that the protest failed. It wasn't a complete failure in this sense. Pyrrhic victory though.) The independence movement (if you can call it that) obviously failed and protesters were rounded up by the hundreds (lots of riots trials pending). I don't know whether the failure is just due to the huge denominator of the whole Chinese population though. It's certainly a factor, but if you ask me, the stakeholders are not only all the Chinese people, but also international forces that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo in Hong Kong. Much like how the stance of USA influences Taiwan's status.
maxbond 4y ago
If the model is that nonviolent protest is always effective if we cross a certain threshold, but that every citizen of Hong Kong could be in the streets without crossing that threshold, this model is meaningless. Nonviolent protests are critical and can absolutely bring about change, but it is a brutal and drawn out process and not some kind of magic bullet.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  By that same metric, the same holds true for violent protests. Some protests are doomed regardless of if they are violent or not. Some can only succeed if they are violent, some can only succeed if they are nonviolent. I am not aware of any successful violent protests. I know of some violent revolutions, but if you go there, you better make sure you can actually compete with the opposition.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I must have expressed myself badly. I believe that, if you're engaged in a violent revolution, you have already failed; you will recapitulate the status quo, should you gain control of society. This is why I described nonviolent protest as critical. When I said the process was brutal, it was because nonviolent movements will be opposed brutally, not because brutality is any sort of virtue. I was making a more nuanced point about this particular conversation, perhaps one that didn't really need to be made.