LibertyLizard

I think the research was done prior to that event. It's a bit dated at this point.

Also, it's a bit ambiguous how to count Hong Kong as a semi-autonomous region in China. Should you measure by percentage of Hong Kongers or percentage of Chinese? I might think the latter, since they're subject to the force of that nation.

Similar but distinct. Much further left for one thing.

Also, the average level of tech knowledge here is off the charts. Like I feel like a caveman and in my office I'm the one people to go through for help. Never felt like that on Reddit.

Delete? They don't even let dissenters post in the first place.

Soviets as originally created were actually pretty based. Unfortunately the Bolsheviks crushed them about 5 minutes into their reign the moment they stopped being useful.

I agree they’re putting out feelers but I don’t think they’ll get traction. I didn’t find anyone calling for direct US intervention, mainly just indirect support for Israel. Who was saying that?

I also found some leaders explicitly saying the US should not get involved. I guess it feels a lot different from the post-9/11 years when it felt like only political radicals were opposed to war, and basically every mainstream voice was cheering it on. So that’s why I’m a bit more optimistic.

I assume you’re comparing this to rhetoric around cops. Cops are ideologically and organizationally unified with top down command structure and they protect one another even in cases of wrongdoing or violence.

Most modern protests are just random people who chose to show up. These are totally different situations.

This is an important question. I believe the research in question defined movements by the predominant tactic used, even if there was a small amount of violence.

So protests like the anti-ICE ones in LA would probably count as non-violent in the research.

Edit: Here is a more recent work by the same author that more directly engages with some of the questions and criticisms that emerged from their initial work the BBC article is discussing.

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124128

Are they? What are they saying regarding Iran?

So what is it time for then, Tim? The people want to know.

Sign in required. What’s it say?

Destroying surveillance infrastructure is community and self defense.

Not overreacting. Driving is extremely dangerous for yourself and others around you, not to mention environmentally destructive. And an increasing number of people are choosing to live a car-free lifestyle for these reasons.

If you live in an area where alternatives like walking, biking, or transit are viable, then I’d definitely consider it. If not, then you may not have a choice. But consider whether you can move to an area where you can avoid driving. Even as an experienced and competent driver, as I’ve gradually decreased the frequency I drive, my quality of life has improved a lot.

Biking especially is increasingly viable in many cities and even suburbs nowadays. However, if you’re forced to share the road with heavy cars and trucks it could be dangerous if you don’t have good situational awareness. But that is something you may be able to develop with practice. As someone who is a regular urban cyclist I feel my awareness and skills have dramatically improved with time.