because you and these protests are quoting 3.5% as if its a fact. its a magnitude without a vector. the vector is the important aspect, not the magnitude. if your vector is ‘run around city limits with pithy signage’ (our current protests) I assure you, nothing will change even if you had 50% of the population doing it.
historically its when the vector hits around 3.5% that matters. if you have the wrong vector the magnitude is completely unrelated and you’ll end up in a different location than you expected. Notice that around aspect of 3.5% because guess what: it actually isnt a value that matters much. its the vector that actually institutes change.
the population against the GOP and Trump already exceeds 3.5% they just dont know how to effectively protest and the people running these protests have nfc what they are doing when it comes to leading such activities. that was the point of the voting numbers.
my point is quoting that number as if its a magical threshold we need to reach without anything else is actually counter productive to actually getting change.
the problem with you being an idiot and spouting this nonsense is hilariously exemplified by your assertion that reading papers and books somehow gives you insights without actually putting that information into its proper context which you clearly havent, nor have the people running these protests.
if you want these protests to be effective you need to do a few things:
- actually cause harm to the institutes causing the problems.
- do it in such a way the population doesnt revolt against you efforts.
- show that its effective and people should help. (you’ll know because the government will crack down on you, and people will show up to future events)
anything outside of those 3 aspects in just noise. I’ll simply point you to luigi as a wonderful counter point to the ‘nonviolence’ aspect of that 3.5% number tossed around. His actions where highly supported by the population, used violence effectively, and it did effect change however small. if you look at basically every successful movement there is always violence involved. which people like the author try to ignore. take gandhi’s movement against the british, widely lauded as non-violent, however if you take a wider perspective beyond that movement itself you’ll learn there was violence involved. by other groups at the same time you can’t decouple those two groups from the outcome. they both play roles in the result and thats exactly what the paper where the 3.5% number comes from ignored; the activities of the groups operating at the same time as the peaceful ones.
And then there is the question of what actually constitutes violence. did they consider property damage as violence? how about economic blockades? I consider both to be violence and effective agents of change.
Put on a dress and do your nails they’ll love you.