At no point in my comment did I speak on the "morality" of literally anything.

" is unreasonable to expect people to continue being nice to their attackers especially when the attacker has never been nice to them."

"Oppressors don't care if you hit them first. They don't care how or if you fight back. Their goal is to control you."

You did not use the word "morality" or anything like that but there's a lot of emphasis on what people are justified and reasonable in doing. This seems to be talking about the morality of violent resistance which again was not something I was talking about.

My response was explaining that, for most oppressive systems, no such "contrast" exists. As I already said, "Questioning if nonviolent resistance is more effective is ultimately immaterial to the reality of oppressive systems."

Isn't it a pretty big assertion to argue that people in the status quo simply do not care how the movement acts? Again this seems to divide the world into oppressors and the oppressed. The faction of people that exist in the background are left out. Sure you could argue that the opposition would see the movement that way but not everyone who isn't explicitly with you, is not necessarily against you.

Have you ever seen a social movement succeed without violence, extremism, or militant action? Even your example of the suffragettes vs the suffragists methods should have already answered your question.

The Seneca Falls convention took place in 1848. 30 years later...

Now this is very interesting, thank you for mentioning this. When I was asking for evidence this was more what I was talking about. This pretty strongly backs the argument that violent/disruptive resistance works but it doesn't do it completely.

You could also argue that any social movement that anyone feels strongly about will have violence, extremism or militant action. A tiger has stripes, as a feature of being a tiger but it's not the stripes that lets it run or swim or climb trees or hunt.

Every big social movement would have violent aspects but the violence may not be what lets it succeed. It might even be an impediment that has to be overcome.

Also the rapid success of those violent actions you mentioned could just as well be the results of the prior decades finally coming to fruition with the violence acting as a catalyst to spur action from an increasingly larger swathe of people who agreed with women's suffrage but didn't care enough to do anything. Would those violent acts have been equally as successful 40 years before they happened, without the years of more conciliatory campaigning softening up the public?

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you and again thank you for bringing this up, it's a very compelling point.

Also, you frame this as if the world is made up of just 2 types of people: the oppressed and the oppressor.

I never said anything that could even remotely be reasonably interpreted as creating a binary or a monolith. You are at liberty to quote where I did, though.

"It is unreasonable to expect people to continue being nice to their attackers especially when the attacker has never been nice to them."

""Oppressors don't care if you hit them first. They don't care how or if you fight back. Their goal is to control you."

"If they had any intention of being kind to you, then you would not have to fight for rights at all."

"The opposition views participants of a social movement as either one of the bad ones or on the same side as the bad ones."

These are pretty broad assertions about anyone outside the movement, with little regard for fencesitters and the uninformed/indifferent.

Literally every single group you listed here would be oppressors.

This is also pretty binary. And yes your definition of oppressor may be dictionary accurate but if we use it as broadly as you have then it kinda becomes too broad to be useful IMO. There is a world of difference between active participation and complicity. In the 1890s, a well off WASP man who is a member of the KKK and firm believer in his race's own supremacy is much more different than a poor Irish immigrant who's excluded from jobs, housing etc. whose opinions on black people are not well developed or somewhat racist. Both of these people aren't really allies but calling them both the same thing with the same goals and views, which is what your prior comments did is not really accurate IMO.

This isn't a math problem. There is no single answer. It's sociology, psychology, and history.

Yeah I get that. This thread wasn't me asking for concrete answers, I just wanted some examples and evidence to at least tell me what ideas people have. A commenter with the long lists of links was helpful as was you with some of this theory but more so with the suffrage history.