Which of these 23 links backs up the claim that “people only respond to violence,” or, paraphrasing, non-violent resistance is ineffective?
I tried to skim a couple, but the synopsis on one was simply a recounting of black power tactics from the 70s, and another was a wiki page about the radical flank effect, which actually referenced the book I linked to support the claim that having a violent radical flank appeared to have no positive effect. Other references sometimes found a positive effect, but I can’t really compare the merits of the sources.
Honestly, having a pile of obscure links to whip out in favor of political violence is, at a minimum, odd.
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156837/
This is the work that’s often being referenced when talking about non-violent vs violent resistance, and the 3.5% participation claim.
I don’t see any references for your claims either.
https://archive.org/details/strategyofsocial0000gams_d3m9
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm174
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/keystone-xl-protesters-science-joe-nocera-bill-mckibben/
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/543
https://archive.org/details/politicsofwomens00free
http://www2.cortland.edu/schools/arts-and-sciences/herbert-h.-haines.dot
https://web.archive.org/web/20150402133541/http://irasilver.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Reading-Movement-funding-Haines.pdf
https://archive.org/details/blackradicalsciv0000hain/page/n6/mode/1up
https://web.archive.org/web/20150101221603/http://beck.library.emory.edu/southernchanges/article.php?id=sc12-1_004
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/VHEHHFBAANC7ZUNFWK3A?target=10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00498_3.x
https://books.google.com/books?id=aKt8f_PpRSQC
http://www.teachingforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Crosby-this_nonviolent_stuff.pdf
http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=10963#.U1XprsJOVjo
http://government.arts.cornell.edu/assets/psac/sp14/Gupta_PSAC_Feb7.pdf
https://archive.org/details/socialmovementsr2edunse
http://www.citizenshandbook.org/movements.pdf
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/9/4/6/p109468_index.html
http://ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Radical_Flank_Effects__The_Effect_of_Radical__Mod.pdf?paperid=23267
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Chenoweth.Schock.Contemporaneous.Armed_.Challenges.pdf
https://archive.org/details/strategyofsocial0000gams_d3m9
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/blair-taylor-from-alterglobalization-to-occupy-wall-street
https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4pw6j9s1.pdf;origin=repeccitec
https://www.academia.edu/18313197/Rethinking_Radical_Flank_Theory_South_Africa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect
Which of these 23 links backs up the claim that “people only respond to violence,” or, paraphrasing, non-violent resistance is ineffective?
I tried to skim a couple, but the synopsis on one was simply a recounting of black power tactics from the 70s, and another was a wiki page about the radical flank effect, which actually referenced the book I linked to support the claim that having a violent radical flank appeared to have no positive effect. Other references sometimes found a positive effect, but I can’t really compare the merits of the sources.
Honestly, having a pile of obscure links to whip out in favor of political violence is, at a minimum, odd.
All of them.
If you think Civil Rights was won with flowers and rainbows, it means your privilege is showing.
I don’t give two shits what a racist thinks is odd.
Maybe choose one or two source to back up your point. Nobody’s going to go through your wall of links.