• DomeGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It shouldn’t be. Asserting that “no non-violent protests have failed” ignores an obvious null hypothesis.

      Tyrannical regimes attack non-violent protests that get large enough, and then call said movements “violent” to justify what the state did to them.

      • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Chenoweth didn’t “assert” anything, she looked at hundreds of campaigns over the last century and reported results. Her work is linked in the article - you’re welcome to critique her methodology after reading it. Null hypothesis my ass.

        • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Since you read it, and don’t reference them addressing the fact pattern I mentioned, I’m not sure reading it would be worth my time. I’d love to be convinced, however, if you can answer one question.

          How did she categorize a movement as “non-violent” or not?

          • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I didn’t read it, nor did I claim to have. It comes down to whether it’s more reasonable to have confidence in a study by a Harvard academic or the dismissive comments of a social media rando. Now go ahead and have the last word so you can give yourself internet victory points, woo-hoo! IDGAF.