[alphazard]

> Nonviolent folks can be negotiated with. Its not permitted to negotiate with criminals/terrorists.

This is definitely true to some extent, especially when non-violence has been used in the more distant past.

But in recent history, the non-violent approach creates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties, who find violence against non-combatants to be unpalatable. You can turn the world against an enemy by putting the enemy's asymmetric use of force on display. This doesn't work in a lower empathy society.

[pixl97]

>reates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties

Only if you have good advertising for your cause.

Violence is typically good advertising, most news is simply salivating to cover it.

Which means in any non-violent group seeking a goal, it is optimal to have a small violent 'unassociated' group cause just enough problems to get noticed in the global media.

[direwolf20]

Does sympathy effect change or does it merely effect emotions?