peaceful protesting works better than violent protesting

[dead0man]

(or why sucker punching a neoNazi, torching a Muslim immigrant's limo and breaking windows at the Clinton supporting Starbucks is dumb and counterproductive)

Why Civil Resistance Works

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of the anti-govt protests in the 20th century, nonviolent protests worked 53%, violent ones at only 26%.

Another interesting scholarly article specifically about the US civil rights movement in the 60s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     People have a kneejerk-negative reaction to folks making noise and being disruptive. Making a point of being nonviolent can be an effective means of overcoming that reaction and not just being dismissed as rabblerousers. When you are dismissed as such, it's really hard to gain support, and it's easy to be attacked by the authorities.

     When Dr. King led the march in Birmingham, the juxtaposition of the peaceful marchers and the brutal suppression tactics of the police revealed the stark nature of Jim Crow to a national audience that really did not understand what was happening in the South. They made the case for their grievances and advanced their cause far more effectively by resisting passively than any amount of violence would have done.

[Leinad]

Couldn't agree more. Being violent is probably the best way to make people think you're wrong. And when 1% of a protest group is being violent and 99% are being peaceful, which subsection gets the most media coverage? The violent ones, leading "Middle America" to view, through Fox News-colored glasses, major urban centers being burnt to the ground at the hands of communist/anarchist hooligans.

[dead0man]

Only libertarian leaning people like peace?

[This Has Only Just Begun]

Assuming that it does not benefit my bid to subvert this mortal realm, obviously I support peaceful protesting.

Really this is just human nature 101.  People who resort to violent protesting are largely people who feel like they are not being heard.  It is in many ways similar to disgruntled employees who one day swear at their bosses without care to the consequences of their outburst.  It is very tough and very hard to overcome that strong negative feeling.

Which is why peaceful protests generally work a lot better.  You gain a lot of respect from other people if you are facing an unrepentant mean-spirited side that will concede nothing.  In the long run that means a lot more pressure on the other side to either concede your point or to resign from the proceedings.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Peaceful protests only work when there exists a portion of the population that they can reach who can feel guilt, shame, or otherwise be persuaded. When dealing with cultists, zombie hordes, or the like who have totally gathered all power to themselves (not saying the has happened in the US, yet) then peaceful protest accomplishes very little and is probably not worth the cost.

[Confused Democrat]

Peaceful > violent protesting is the most obvious answer, but that is only because we live in a country where the right to protest is enshrined in our constitution and because the right to protest in general is necessary for a functioning democracy.

The question of peaceful > violent protesting gets a lot more complicated when dealing with authoritative governments.