You might enjoy reading Rules for Radicals if you haven't already. If your riot can provoke a worse response from the authority, it can help your cause. The reaction is the action.
It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors, not about a riot.
> You might enjoy reading Rules for Radicals if you haven't already. If your riot can provoke a worse response from the authority
One motif of Allinsky's message is the importance of organisation. Triggering tear gas against your peaceful protest is one thing. Losing control of it such that stores start getting looted is not.
> It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors
This is the first-order effect. They got a tweet. (Not a headline.)
I'm sceptical they'll get a second because this isn't a clear case of a nonlethal weapon being used against a peaceful crowd, it's something more muddled, and as a result there are zero comments in this thread discussing what the protesters are protesting.
Just for the sake of the thread, these are "anti-corruption" protests. It is essentially a mass vote of no confidence in the government. The immediate inciting incident was the collapse of a railway station in Novi Sad that killed a bunch of people, but it has turned into much more.
It's been going since November. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the prelude to a civil war.
Rules for Radicals is one of my favorite books and I don't think this an accurate summary of what Alinsky says, at all. It's a short book, you can get it for free online, people should just read it.
It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors, not about a riot.