All that’s really necessary is to make the people being protested look like bigger assholes than the protesters.

Ghandi, and his followers, faced death. The British committed massacres. The world at large didn’t stand for it. The British (at home) didn’t stand for it. Churchill was livid that Mountbatten, “gave India away.”

Non-violence works when one is willing to accept the risk of slaughter.

Since I never stated that the purpose of any counter protest is to reason with them, I can conclude well, nothing because all you have done is attempt to put words in my mouth so you can knock down a straw man argument.

When you state that “The purpose of a non-violent counter-protest is to demonstrate to onlookers that our side is calm and reasonable and their side is not;” you are making an assumption about their intention; that it is theatre art. I don’t believe it is at all and I think that you are making a deadly assumption about the intent and behavior of the protestors. I believe that these people are intent on the physical intimidation of their adversaries, and don’t give a damn about how it appears to on-lookers.

Let me quote from Orwell writing as the party hack/torturer O’Brien who states to Winston Smith about the purpose of the ruling INGSOC Party…..

“Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

The object of those protests was to protest and the direct intimidation of their adversaries. It was not theatre art intended to be booed or applauded by on-lookers.

I don’t believe that physical intimidation can be met successfully without the underlying potential for violence in return. I wish to the God I pray to that this was not true, but my experience shows that it is.

As to your threat of banishment; so be it, but you ought to recognize that your bile towards me is most likely not based upon my inability to read well, but is based upon you being piqued about referring to your own attitude being derived from your own ego. As one who practices Buddhism and the oblivion of the ego, that likely is a soft spot with you, and of course, your ego.

Btw considering point three of your post, if you are at all honest with yourself, the person who ought to be banned is you, not me. I question whether you read better than me, or think better than me, and I post without the belligerence you have shown in your post to me.

The site is yours. I will continue to read it for insights, but it remains clear that you are too sensitive to criticism, so this will be my last post to you.

Oh and one thing, read more Orwell, especially “Homage to Catalonia.” Not only does he write well, he also lived through a time when sheer and violent thuggery held sway.

Btw; just a simple thought experiment; have you ever thought about what the Nazis would have done to Mohandas Gandhi and his non-violent protestors? Likely they would be treated in the same manner as the denizens of the Warsaw Ghetto. Non-violent protest noble, but is effective only when you believe that your adversary is going to show some sort of basic humanity, otherwise you get slaughtered.

Have a nice weekend.

I would like to point out that you cannot read. Or think too well, either. You write,

Do you expect some sort of epiphany to embrace reason from them once they see you flash them a peace sign?

I said they could not be reasoned with, didn’t I? Exactly what is your problem?

Non-violence has two purposes that ought to be obvious to anyone with a brain, which apparently doesn’t include you:

1. Countering violence with violence multiplies violence. That’s its only effect.

2. You seem to think that the purpose of a counter-protest is to reason with protesters. That is absurd. The purpose of a non-violent counter-protest is to demonstrate to onlookers that our side is calm and reasonable and their side is not; see “bigger asshole” rule. A demonstration is only effective when whoever is being demonstrated is revealed to be a bigger asshole than the demonstrators.

3. People who cannot read, or think, and who write belligerent comments, tend to get themselves banned. Read commenting rules.

“These are not people who can be reasoned with,” what is the purpose of non-violence? Non-violent action has at its core a basic belief that you can reason with adversaries based upon mutually recognizible common grounds.

Tell me what recognizible common grounds these folks announce by their own violent actions, because I don’t see any.

Do you expect some sort of epiphany to embrace reason from them once they see you flash them a peace sign? (They would just as likely bite off your fingers, would they not?)

I think that belief, that these protesters are just like you and me has a massive amount of egotism fused through it.

My life experience has led me to believe that it is futile to negotiate with people who have the morality and social conscience of cannibals. They respect only power and dispise as a personal flaw and weakness in their adversaries any attempts at logically wrought conciliation and tend to exploit it for personal gain.

That is quite a comment. I am from the south and don’t think the country is struggling JUST because of the south.