The consistency is also impressive given the fact that when the causal arrow is reversed and one considers research that investigates the influence of repressive behavior on dissent (exploring one of the core aspects of collective action theory regarding the importance of costs), the results are highly inconsistent.

This is the part that confuses researchers. We know that dissent causes repression, but we don't know if repression actually stops dissent. Sometimes people get scared and go home (negative impact), but other times it just makes them angrier and leads to more protests (positive impact). It’s a puzzle because the government keeps using repression even though they aren't totally sure it works.

"When challenges to the status quo take place, authorities generally employ some form of repressive action to counter or eliminate the behavioral threat; in short, there appears to be a “Law of Coercive""

If people start protesting or challenging the way things are (the status quo), the government almost always hits back with force to make them stop. Political scientists call it a "Law" because it happens so consistently across almost every country they’ve studied

If a group doesn't have an opponent, a network, AND a shared identity, it’s not technically a "social movement" according to Diani. This is a great checklist for analyzing any case study.

This is the "new normal" argument. Basically, movements aren't just occasional outbursts anymore; they are a permanent part of how politics works now. If you're writing about why we should care about activism today, use this to show it's "conventional" rather than "fringe."