3.5% = nothing considering the orange traitor ignored it, the plotiicians ignored it and now its business as usual with the orange man doing hid corrupted shit.
Let me know how these kumbaya protests help. Narrator: they dont .
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
206 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24176 readers
2913 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
so i guess this politics sub is going to be just as fucking dumb as the politics sub on reddit.
boot licker post.
I feel like this 3.5% shit is a psyop to get people to do planned, permitted, and non-disruptive protests that have zero chance of actually accomplishing anything instead of organizing strikes, sit-ins, shutdowns, and other things that actually work, because hey, everything will just magically work out if we just get to 3.5% right? No need to turn the screws on the people in power or actually disrupt anyone's day and force them to listen to your platform when you can just have a nice day in the sun with your quirky sign with all your friends and it will magically make change happen because there are a lot of you.
it 100% is.
Problems is that people are just kind of seeing “3.5%” and they’re not actually listening to the details behind it.
The 3.5% is a sign that you’re organizing effectively. The number in and of itself is not the goal.
Also, the research noted that, once an authoritarian regime starts to crack down on protests, that well organized machine usually has to flip to other nonviolent tactics like general strikes, shutdowns, and pressuring regime supporters to join the resistance.
Can't they just go to Cuba if they want socialism?
You ignorant piece of shit there is no socialism in Cuba. Its ran by a dictatorship.
Please shut the fuck up.
Signed - a Cuban.
All I know is that Cuba is somewhere in the solar system.
Possibly on earth.
It tells us that people love the system telling them they are rebelling correctly, according to the system. “You can’t fail if you keep doing things the way you’re told!”
What it doesn't say is it still takes orginized violence to achieve the goals.
There's a breaking point of civil disobedience when they are no longer able to control the sheer number of people.
Actually, her research says the complete opposite. Violence significantly lowered the odds of being successful.
i thought you were a boot licker for making this post. this comment just confirms it.
I don't think its a matter of violence vs non-violence. Even in the samples provided by the article, its a matter of willingness to commit what would otherwise be criminal acts. Ghandi was successful not because of the Salt March but because they created the Declaration of Sovereignty and Self-rule and refused to pay taxes until negotiations were made.
I remember Penn and Teller did an episode that touched on this on a show they had. The big take away was there is a difference between doing good and doing something that makes you feel good. What's accomplished by a sit-in on a courthouse lawn on the weekend that you filed and received a permit to do from the city? People like to compare stuff like that to the 1960s civil rights movement, but here's the thing: Rosa Parks not giving up her seat wasn't a social faux pas, it was a criminal act in Alabama.
Obstruction and resisting authoritarian rules are key, but when looking at the sum of violent and nonviolent movements, the nonviolent movement had a higher percentage of wins.
And when researched looked into that finding, they learned that nonviolent actions were more successful at attracting allies, and violent resistance played into authoritarians hands. Authoritarians want to use “protection” as a way to stop resistance.
that is 100% bullshit. if you look at all of human history, violence has by far been more effective.
That article is probably not the best way to support that idea though. It mentions "when 3.5% of its population actively mobilized against it" but doesn't explain what "actively mobilized" even means. It talks about how effective non-violence has been in other countries but then caveats that to being when an independent judiciary was present. It even uses Kilmar Abrego Garcia to support that idea, but fails to mention that a lower court's decision was ignored and the only reason the SC was involved was because the administration said it didn't have to listen to them.
Obstruction is good, but ultimately if you are not at risk of losing anything by that obstruction, it likely isn't an effective way to accomplish anything. That's even if you could consider it obstruction. If you are permitted to have a rally then you are not obstructing anything. You're just having a good time. Municipalities don't approve permits that obstruct, its the whole reason for permits.
So if we get 3.5% of the population to stand in a field the fascist have to just give up? Swiper no swiping?
Grow up dude, use your brain to figure out what happens in between aggregating people and fascists being removed from power.
Grow up dude
Can we dial it down? This is Lemmy, not X. We don’t need to treat each other poorly in order to have a conversation.
He wants other people to fight his battle, when he couldn't even be bothered to vote.
You see it around this site all over.
I'm completely willing to fight my and YOUR battles for us.
Every right you have was taken from those in power with the violence and blood of workers
You need to stop preaching propaganda meant to keep us domesticated
I agree that probably someone's blood is getting spilled in the process of gaining rights but it could be, and often is, the blood of the nonviolent protestors, and I think acknowledging that is core to minimizing the bloodshed. Call me a fool for thinking the fascists are still human I guess.
Every right you have was taken from those in power with the violence and blood of workers
MLK, Susan B. Anthony, and Cézar Chávez would disagree with that statement.
"Riots are the voice of the unheard" -MLK
So you were right with 2/3 of your cherry picked examples.
Clearly you think fascists will just give up randomly once we stand around holding signs long enough. I don't think they'll do that.
I'm done engaging with you.
MLK certainly gave his blood for the cause.
Clearly you aren't since you couldn't even be coerced to vote.
I voted, fuck off and take your pussy gotcha with you
Oh man, quivering in my boots over here tough guy.
While this article doesn’t say 3.5% showed up… It’s dubious that the claims of there being 3.5% of the population engaged in the No Kings Day protest is correct exactly because some of the numbers offered magically hit that 3.5% mark. People are starting with the conclusion they want and making the numbers match to reach it. There’s a range of estimated participation in No Kings Day, and most estimates are below the 3.5%. It was an amazing turnout that the press largely ignored.
I keep seeing this but the claim is dubious at best and feel like conflating correlation with causation. While the examples cited were largely non violent they had aspects and sub movements advocating violence and destruction, so any outcomes cannot be isolated in a way to make this claim.
She doesn’t claim that you need to hit 3.5% and then you’re magically able to overthrow an authoritarian government.
She notes that disciplined nonviolent resistance, focused around a concise and relatable message, is a characteristic of successful movements. And that turnout number is a common artifact of movement who are focused, strategic, and disciplined. The number in and of itself is not the goal.
If this is what I think it is, it's also highly selective in what to include. If it wasn't successful it's not included, for some reason or another. It's somewhat useful, but it's far from being a rule.
Listen to the first half of this podcast as Chenoweth explains what the cavets are to this rule. She describes it more of as a descriptive rule not prescriptive rule, and suggests many other circumstances going on in addition to achieving this rule. Further régimes have adapted to this rule since it was first discovered and she's still truing to see what that adaptation means.
You Are Not So Smart: 313 - The 3.5 Percent Rule - Erica Chenoweth
Episode webpage: https://youarenotsosmart.com/
load more comments
(1 replies)
It only works when politicians are worried about getting reelected. When fighting dedicators it doesn't really work that way.
All of this research is around overthrowing authoritarian dictators.
Where was an authoritarian dictator abolished without armed conflict with rebels getting external support (like in Syria)?
Mass protests in Belarus - no change
Mass protests in Venezuela - no change
Mass protests in Iran - no change
Mass protests in Turkey - no change
There isn't a world where removing fascists from power doesn't take organized violence.
The people wishing to delegitimize violent protest are either ignorant of history or actively fighting against change.
The research didn’t say “mass protests and they’re out.” It simply shows the key characteristics that make a resistance more likely to be successful. And nonviolence, a focused message, and high participation are a good way to increase your odds.
The authors coined a rule about the level of participation necessary for a movement to succeed, called the "3.5% rule": nearly every movement with active participation from at least 3.5% of the population succeeded.[8][9] All of the campaigns that achieved that threshold were nonviolent.[10]
I have read books by Mark Penn and Malcolm Gladwell, which talk about that magical 3.5% as a "Tipping Point" that can kick off a trend. It's not guaranteed, but historical records indicate that it takes at least 3.5% to reach critical mass.
In America, that's about 11.5 - 12 million people.
FWIW, the rightists seem to have picked up on a similar number:
The group's name derives from the erroneous[6][7] claim that "the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists" during the American Revolution.[8]
So… how long until Trump is gone then?
It's important to remember that Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom.
The pressure needs to increase until the problem is solved.
He may be a symptom but he is also a focusing lense, think of him like a magnifying glass starting fires. The sun is still a problem and the conditions for fire are still present but at the very least without the magnifying glass actively starting fires it's a lot easier to deal with.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Fascinating idea and I look forward to reading the book. As someone who has never seen protests be that effective as compared to other constituency pressure mechanisms, it's an interesting counter point.
The OP's article indicates 3.5% of the population, which for the US at the moment would be around 340 million. 3.5% would be 11.9 million people.
Rough guesses are that the protest saw about 4-6 million people out yesterday.
I'm particularly curious about the paper's coalition building concepts about tying immigration to other value such as worker rights, private sector interests such as agriculture, racial justice, etc.
Beyond this I wonder if the analysis from ten years ago takes into account the technological isolation, manipulation, and echo chambering of modern politics. I would venture to guess that the 3.5% might need to be higher in a population that doesn't listen to 'untrusted opinions'.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Obama's old speechwriting director just interviewed the researcher who uncovered this phenomenon. Pretty fascinating conversation about what successful authoritarian resistance movements have in common.
She didn't "uncover" this phenomenon. Mark Penn was the Clinton's pollster, and he published his book Microtrends in 2007. Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point was published in 2000. The concept of the "Tipping Point" has been known and studied for a long time. .
What was new was the quantification of participation.
I believe both Penn and Gladwell used the 3.5% quantity for a Tipping Point.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›