Repression threatening challenger survival produces resistance, not demobilization.

Evidence

Changes in POS that stimulate increased contention, furthermore, do not always involve expanding opportunity for challengers; repression that directly threatens challengers’ identities and survival regularly produces resistance rather than passive demobilization (Goldstone and Tilly 2001; Tilly 2005c). — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 662

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to testing the asymmetry: if institutional absorption channels dominant-group politicization, Tilly here notes repression of challengers backfires — tension with any claim that absorption defuses politicization. — connects to: Mass repression atomizes a crowd into isolated individuals focused only on survival — Vincent Bevins, If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and…, 36; Repression fails to suppress mobilization and can even accelerate it — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 578; Escalating resistance met with legalized repression entrenches rather than contains mobilization. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 577 (+2 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 662

Broader Connections

• Escalating resistance met with legalized repression entrenches rather than contains mobilization. #corroborates (0.88) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 577
• Repression drives nonviolent movements to armed rebellion #expands (0.82) — Michael A. Sells, The Bridge Betrayed, 32
• Civil society makes state repression livable yet also feeds resistance to it #corroborates (0.75)