Bringing a "please don't" to a gun fight

Thank you for posting what I've wanted to convey about that study. Mixed strategy movements are the ones with true success. The civil rights movement did not succeed on MLK's back alone. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers becoming militarized is why the U.S. government started thinking about extending an olive branch. Well that and the RIOTS after Dr. MLK was assassinated by the FBI. And those riots were not "peaceful".

Thanks for the link.

A major issue with your criticism is you don't directly cite or quote anything, so we can't readily verify your claims.

A more significant issue is that we have a systematic research study with a clear design & methodology to support its conclusion. Where's the superior study to support your conclusions?

If I had to choose, then I think I'd stick with the conclusions backed by systematic research.

From what I can tell, it works backwards from a conclusion the authors already held.

Held before the study? Do you think people can only write their thoughts chronologically?

They excluded peaceful events that weren’t “noteworthy,”

Where? ::: spoiler The article you linked states they analyzed resistance campaigns, not events.

Our research goals are threefold: first, to determine whether nonviolent or violent resistance campaigns have a better record of achieving stated objectives

We define a resistance campaign as a series of observable, continuous tactics in pursuit of a political objective. A campaign can last anywhere from days to years. Campaigns have discernible leadership and often have names, distin-guishing them from random riots or spontaneous mass acts.

By analyzing campaigns rather than individual events, we are able to make some general observations about campaigns that can be explored further through in-depth case studies. Moreover, resistance campaigns involve much more than just events; they involve planning, recruiting, training, intelligence, and other operations besides their most obvious disruptive activities. Using events asthe main unit of analysis ignores these other operations, whereas analyzing campaigns allows usto consider the broader spectrum of activities as a whole. :::

labeled protests as violent if police instigated violence

Where? To the contrary, there's a whole section about that backfiring against the regime opposing a nonviolent movement.

Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime.

How would they be able to make such claims if they label all such movements as violent?

narrowly defined success windows for violent movements while crediting peaceful ones for regime collapses that likely would have happened anyway

Where? ::: spoiler Success criteria and windows for both were the same.

The outcomes of these campaigns are identified as “success,” “limited success,” or “failure.” To be designated a “success,” the campaign must have mettwo criteria: (1) its stated objective occurred within a reasonable period of time (two years) from the end of the campaign; and (2) the campaign had to have a discernible effect on the outcome. A “limited success” occurs when a campaign obtained significant concessions (e.g., limited autonomy, local powersharing, or a nonelectoral leadership change in the case of dictatorship) although the stated objectives were not wholly achieved (i.e., territorial independence or regime change through free and fair elections). A campaign is coded a “failure” if it did not meet its objectives or did not obtain significant concessions. :::

has shown that the effectiveness of nonviolence has drastically diminished

Do you have a proper study to support that by the same standards/methodology?

Even the study’s lead author has acknowledged that modern authoritarian regimes now use digital surveillance and media control to neutralize peaceful dissent.

Where? How does that affect

Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.

or make violent campaigns any more effective?

The study also ignores the reality that mixed-strategy movements—where one faction remains peaceful while another escalates—are often more successful

Do you have studies as credible as this to support that conclusion?

it frames nonviolence as the only legitimate or effective tactic

Does it? The study seems to merely compare outcomes of resistance campaigns in an unopinionated fashion as stated in the design & methodology.

Your argument would improve with stronger support.

I sure don't have any qualms about nonviolence succeeding because the oppressors realize they don't want to see the violence.

I mean that's how the civil rights movement succeeded here in the US. I know we get a heavily sanitized version basically reduced to "I have a dream" but the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were extremely active and militarized. It was either deal with MLK's peace movement or deal with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.