Your Definition of Non-Violent Protests

[Stratego]

What is your definition of non-violent protests? Would you consider a protest non-violent if no one is physically hurt during the protest, but their house or business is completely destroyed? Are protests where no one is hurt and no property is destroyed more or less effect than those with damage?

[nordictruce]

A non violent protests are those people that camp out at the jail when someone is about to be executed.


Any time there is looting / vandalism or outright violence, that can't be non violent.

[Kane]

Property crimes are still violent. Burning down a house is a bad idea in a heavily populated area due to close proximity of other structures as well as likely issues related to age of building, existing code, etc.

A non-violent protest is a peaceful one. There is no attacking of individuals or property.

[Professor]

Non-violent protests are usually more successful at swaying public opinion. Whatever the issue, a lot of people will usually agree with the protesters. If the protesters make a big, public show about the issue, non-violently, then they make a scene, bring publicity to the problem, and gather more supporters. But, if they turn violent, then it'll turn people off to the cause, even if they agree with the premise.

[Philly]

Most protests these days accomplish nothing anyway, because most of them are a one day and done thing, then we move on to the next story.

Think about the bus boycotts of the civil rights movement. For months and months, people who relied on the bus as their primary mode of transportation refused to ride. People with cars would drive all over town to help those without carpool with them. Those not fortunate enough to be part of a carpool walked, miles and miles, every day.

People just don't seem willing to inconvenience themselves like that anymore. You are one day boycotts to "send a message" but everyone goes right back to their normal ways the next day.

[eynon81]

[Professor]

[exploited]

Meh, protesting is about letting representatives and government know what you want, so I view it as entirely irrelevant. The only way we'll fix shit is if we abolish the representative system entirely and start using new technology to create a direct democracy. I should be able to vote for bills directly, and participate in the writing of them. Keep the constitutional protections but get rid of the useless dickholes that haven't done anything worthwhile in thirty years.

[Philly]

[exploited]

Why? Do you think that our representatives are better at it lol?