[throw0101d]

From the video:

> [Chenoweth and Stephan] have gone out of their way to correct people who treat it like a cheat code, and to caution against overreading any success of non-violent oppostion.

The rebuttal is against those arguing that 3.5% is a "magic number", that treat(ed) it like an 'absolute', when we're actually dealing with probabilities and likelihoods and odds.

The formulators of the "3.5% rule" do not treat it as an absolute, and neither do I: my GP post talks about "odds" and likelihoods.

[shimman]

Nice, so you didn't watch the video completely. Hopefully others don't make your mistake, both that and believing that garbage.

Resistance has always been violence/sabotage towards oppressors, if nonviolence actions were effective you'd see more armed forces bashing skulls at no kings protests.

[throw0101d]

> Nice, so you didn't watch the video completely.

I did: he talks about the 3.5% is "just" walking and chanting down the street, but about structure changes 'behind the scenes'.

But the video is generally irrelevant to the point being made in the comment, as Stoermer (video creator) recognizes the people who came up with the rule are criticizing some who are putting it forward certain ideas about.

Stoermer is putting forward the idea that the 3.5% needs to be done in a certain way to actually be something meaningful, which doesn't disprove the rule nor the originating comment: that you'll be more liekly to get to a critical mass of movement supporters by eschewing violence.