Jim wrote:
Ghandi. Womens Sufferage (US). Jim Crow Laws (US). Vietnam. Civil Rights in the 60's. The point being, there are plenty of historical precidence where this sort of behaviour has led directly to the change desired by the protestors against a much better armed and entrenched foe.
It depends on which sort of behavior you mean--none of these causes believed in violence at all! Back in the day, anarchists used to assasinate
Oh, yes they did, they just didn't act violently. Ghandi used violence--the violence of the British Empire to call attention to his cause. Vietnam didn't end because a bunch of spoiled college kids were pouting in the streets, it ended because their *parents*, and those coming back from Vietnam wanted it to end, plus it was getting real expensive. As far as the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, ever notice how suddenly MLK jr. and friends got a *lot* more attention and action once the Black Panthers and associates started making threats? As well, while MLK jr. might have preached non-violence, there were plenty of armed individuals in that movement who weren't going to tolerate violence against them. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.