From the comments

‘ Does rioting work?’

It depends.

Sometimes it does.

Sometimes it doesn’t.

Sometimes it does

Sometimes it doesn’t.

Here is the original post.

Comments

What’s the time frame for “work”? Define “work” in this context (e.g. make authorities accede to wishes ... but whose wishes?)?

Who speaks for the Yellow Vest protestors in Paris? Didn’t yesterday’s spokesperson contradict today’s?

Shades of the Athenian elders mocked for their individualistic cowardice (celebrated for their careful pragmatism?) in the Agamemnon: “you go in!”, “no you!”, “well I'm not going in”, “why don’t we discuss it some more?”, “no, why don’t we vote!” ... and so on and on while the King bleeds out.

Is democracy simply non-violent protest writ large?

yesterday
the washington post claimed the "demons" are in the trump crowd but the televangelist in the tele-evangelized prayer/speech said the demons
are in the media!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

MR is turning into Reddit with these cutesy replies.

Sometimes it isn't.

Sometimes it does.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Vaguely disappointed that Tyler didn't highlight anything about cucks.

+1

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1923 Victorian Police Strike Riot in Melbourne: Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1923_Victorian_police_strike

It worked as it resulted in increased pay and improved conditions for police officers.

Of course, this was allowing a riot rather than personally rioting.

Respond

Add Comment

It works and it doesn't work.

It depends on the definition of the word, "works."

Let's assume we're looking at LA, CA. There were riots in 1965 (Watts). A repeat was experienced in 1992. They're due another repeat this Summer.

Apparently, the riots didn't resolve much.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

One of those doesn't belong.

Respond

Add Comment

It can work when there is some direct line between the riot and some concrete action that can lead to a new stable equilibrium on the matter in question, and the people making that decision have reason to make it based on the riot.

Otherwise it either won't work (because there is no action to take or the decision maker doesn't feel compelled) or it won't work because if the action is taken it doesn't actually accomplish a new stable equilibrium (the rioters are no better off after the action then before).

Respond

Add Comment

It all depends on their incentives.

That was me who sockpuppeted you on NC. I'm coming for you.

Or maybe I won’t.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It depends on the size of S and W...

Respond

Add Comment

prior_approval hit hardest.

On a more serious note, it probably would have made more sense to start with prior's comment than to start with my reply to his comment. Though of course prior's comment was just as devoid of humor and nuance as one would expect.

Reference:

"clockwork_prior
June 17, 2019 at 12:31 pm

' Does rioting work?'

"It's too soon to tell." - often attributed to Chou En Lai concerning the French Revolution, but apparently regarding the Paris student riots and sit-ins just three years before meeting Nixon."

Respond

Add Comment

It all depends on how secure the government is: the more secure, the less effective the rioting will be in forcing changes.

Respond

Add Comment

If, for example, you had just done a major peaceful demonstration and won some capital in international public opinion, is there any value to continuing to stage smaller protests the week after?

Respond

Add Comment

@Tyler - this is why I encourage some of your characters to hone their craft. It’s nice to see some getting the credit they deserve.

Even Prior was on a roll channeling his inner Orwell when discussing your latest book. Sadly he has abandoned that role. It had such promise.

Notice that most people, even commenters here, find the idea of a love letter to shark like entities moronic?

Why bother scorning something when it is now obvious that it will be mocked by most people who hear about it.

I’ll give you credit. I liked the 1984 excerpts. They were clever and on point. I enjoyed them and I hope you bring that character back.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It's a numbers game and heavily dependent on the regime's credibility. Syria is a good case study. The government initially had low credibility and the arc of Progressive history seemed to be bending towards the rioters. Then people got to see what happens when the Alawites aren't in charge. Consequently, the Assad regime has gained a lot of credibility and you don't see any more rioting.

Similar situation in Egypt, where rioting led to the overthrow of the military junta headed by Mubarak, and democratic elections resulted in a Muslim Brotherhood government. Thankfully, the Egyptian military ended democratic rule before the Copts could be exterminated completely. The Egyptian junta seems to have regained credibility.

Respond

Add Comment

Try reading Daughter of the River: An Autobiography
by Hong Ying...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment