[elwin]

> The various civil rights movements got where they are today through the use of social repercussions.

I don't think this was the case. Look at, for example, the abolitionist movement. You'll find the social repercussions directed against the movement. It took over twenty years of convincing people of the justice of their cause, despite the forces used against them.

> The lack of social repercussions for things means the status quo stays

Isn't it more likely that social repercussions will be used to enforce the status quo? Only when change has already won can it use social force to complete its victory.

[vertex-four]

> Isn't it more likely that social repercussions will be used to enforce the status quo? Only when change has already won can it use social force to complete its victory.

Not quite. It works in two steps. At the first, while an idea is growing, there are social repercussions against it. Once it reaches a certain mass, the social repercussions start working against the majority.

Even a relatively small minority can affect the majority through social repercussions, by definition, doubly so if the members of the minority are still relatively hidden - if they can't be attacked directly.

In the UK, there's serious social repercussions against supporting UKIP, and they're still plenty strong.