[tossmeup]

Not sure if you're seeing my statement as advocating non-violent, but confrontational methods... that was the intent. Non-violence without any depth of coverage is a tree falling in the woods with nobody there. You need visibility while being non-violent and catalyzing. You must be present and visible to embody the narrative that enables peoples' opinions to be matched with yours. Who takes the internet hate machine seriously?

If you are similar or the same in fundamental, value/moral terms, others are able to identify with you and see how your plight/demands and their aspirations for themselves are the same.

Online petitions are worthless. You need videos that tell the story - like Mitt Romney and his 47%. You need students getting pepper-sprayed. Overreach and douche-baggery strengthen resolve for the believers and give second-thought to anyone trying to reconcile their better selves with the crappier elements of their own side.

Non-violence means little if you are not causing people to deal with you. Nobody is called to account for an online petition or a peaceful protest covered lightly as a hippie revival.

You have to push the envelope and make it uncomfortable - something requiring answers.

[foobarbazqux]

If I win by provoking somebody else to hurt me, that's still violence. True non-violence means nobody gets hurt.

[PavlovsCat]

"True non-violence" also means nobody eats, ever.

Not even Ghandi's movement was non-violent by your definition.

[foobarbazqux]

Yeah, I agree. Violence is basically unavoidable at some level. I prefer true non-violence as the solution to problems, which is why I have a problem with labeling Gandhi's version of violence as non-violence. I think it's better understood as extreme passive aggression.