Meatspace,

[petro]

>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.