Burning a cross in someone's front yard would be classified as non-violent resistance. Or am I missing something here?

That's not even a good attempt at trolling...

Everyone here realizes the differences between intimidation/hate tactics, and open forum protest.

I wish I could say "nice try".

you don't have to do physical harm to a person to be engaged in violent protest. Sometimes psychological harm is just as violent. I felt that the OP's premise was too limited, so I came up with something we'd all recognize as violent, even though it doesn't physically hurt someone to perform this act. Of course, it's something the fringe of the far right wing has used, so perhaps you don't view it as "protest".

I say that just because a protest action nominally supports a progressive ideal, that's not enough to keep it from being considered violence by those it is directed at, if it is severe enough.

Edited to add: By the way, with less than 400 posts, you've got quite a set to call someone who's been here since 2004 a troll.

With your final point. And it certainly encompasses common definitions:


swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.

rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.

an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

a violent act or proceeding.

rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

I guess it just struck me as an odd approach. Not trying to hijack the thread.

I do not believe that those in charge of America will yield power without a struggle. Even the slate of candidates for office are owned by/heavily influenced by those interests. Perhaps a broad technology like the internet can produce a viable candidate from outside of the network of current politics. But permit me my scepticism.

could cause injury.

and unlike republicans I am always open to different ideas.
information I haven't considered can still sway my opinion.

not moving or blocking an entrance.

Are you and the others at your local occupy not getting any training in non-violent techniques? There is probably a local group who would be more than happy to give you some points to follow in regards to non-violent action.

Nonviolence during the civil rights movement included the lack of resistence really. So in their mind the two were oxymorons. They would only kneel down and cover their heads when being beaten. Others might come over and use their bodies to cover the body of the person being beaten, only to be beaten themselves. Call it "passive resistence" maybe.

So I suspect John Lewis might find spray paint, chucking tear gas canisters, and smashing anything, to be contradictory to the spirit of nonviolence. But he's a congressman with an email page and he might actually respond if asked.

Now, blocking a pathway/entrance is pretty classical peaceful resistence. As long as the blocking is done fairly passively, as in just standing there.

An interesting addition to your question would be in the area of protective prepardness. Is it nonviolent to show up with a gas mask, or body armor. A gas mask, motorcycle helmet, and some abdonimal protection go a long way towards being able to passively resist most police nonlethal tactics.

Non cooperation with evil.
Spray paint and throwing thing is not that...in the civil rights days they got beaten and did not fight back...did not gird themselves with armor but willing took the beatings...and it shamed the Jim Crow south and Bull Conner lost in the world of public opinion.
A good example of this is in the movie about Gandhi....where the protesters each in turn went up to the guards and tried to enter...the first one got smacked in the head with a gun but....but the next one stood up and they had to smack him too....and the protesters lined up in a long line each one waiting to get beaten down...after only a few the guards would only pretend to hit them and the protesters would pretend to fall because even the police found the whole thing disgusting....Gandhi won...and so did MLK with the same practices
But many had to take some abuse to make it happen.

non-violent resistance means just that. It is non-violent. There are deeper meanings within the broader term "non-violent resistance', see for example Gandhi's thoughts on Satyagraha.

What OWS is confronted with is a Satyagraha crisis. The truth is that we, the people, have a fundamental and inalienable right to peaceably assemble, for as long as we want, on any open public space, to demand redress of our grievances. That right is being forcibly denied. How much are we willing to sacrifice to defend this right?

You should be willing to sacrifice everything for that right. Nothing caused the police to act the way they did.
Good luck defending anything otherwise.

I should add that OWS is not over. Much is left undone. I'll either send funds or be there in person.

You have my permission to avoid it.

I have no idea what you are going on about, and how it got personal, but whatever.

Do you not jump in these posts about occupy and do your best to degrade their effort?

I'm sure of one other, but won't name them. You is or you isn't.

A lot of radical Christian groups share them.

I'm open to pragmatism, though.

In the sense that X is the ideal, but most people cannot bring themselves to be so pure, in which case we should expect and tolerate Y.

This is certainly true if we're taking inspiration from religious groups that are radical (on the left).

Because to do anything else would be to imply the sort of fundamentalism that has tarnished the reputation of religion in public life.

...look into it for the. Answer to your questions. And I think you knew those answers before asking.

Short of that most things are not violent.

Grafitti is not a violent crime.

throwing teargas away is non-violent. It is better than non-violent because it actually protects people from getting gassed and choked.

vandalism is not a violent crime

blocking an entrance is not violent itself, unless you assault somebody while blocking the entrance

Edit to add:
That's not to say any of these things are a good idea or a good part of a non-violent resistance. They may be bad for other reasons. Like you could get in a lot of trouble. Or it might make the movement look bad on TV, for the general public who we want to win over. So they may not be a good idea, but I can't call graffiti or vandalism violent crimes.

I feel towards those who had the foresight, the strength of vision and commitment and the physical strength to 'Occupy Wall Street."

To my mind, you crystallized the concept of the 99%/1%... as none of the Don Draper, Mad Men, ever accomplished..though perhaps they were paid to look in a different direction (with no insult meant to marketing people, after all, as a single mom, being able to provide for a family is also extremely important)

But the 1% have an economic stranglehold on the media.

So my barometer is different...aside from not wanting to risk injury to anyone, I would never want to give Wolff Blitzer the satisfaction of having anything negative to report about OWS...

Again, I do not have the strength to join OWS... But my thanks and appreciation is enduring...

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I'd draw a distinction between the two... in many cities graffiti artwork can be quite valuable and beautiful (and political). Some cities even fund graffiti artists to do public murals in approved spaces.

Also there's gradations of oppression, too.

If we were living in a complete police state (like Syria) I don't think most people who favored peaceful resistance would complain if someone spray-painted "freedom" on the police station.

But we're in an awkward situation of living in a declining superpower with extensive traditions of democracy that are only nominally enforced at this point. Like the late Roman republic. This means that we're in a position where the vast majority of the 99% has a deep seated patriotic desire to see ourselves as a fundamentally sound nation where the system isn't broke and spray-painting slogans and smashing windows only serves to damage what ain't broke.

What saddens me about the psychology of vandalism is that people vandalize small proprietors' windows all the time for non-political reasons and they get no help or sympathy from the community, only "I hope you have insurance." So smashing windos is ultimately a useless gesture that only serves to anger people who object to vandalism when it is done out of hate, but are unconcerned when it is done out of simple theft.

I think that's the real concern here. Is it an action that is being done out of hate? Or is it the only way to stop something from happening? I'd have no objection if somepony smashed a lock to occupy a premises to prevent a house from being foreclosed on, or a building torn down to make way for a Wal-mart. Sadly, the right wing vandalizes "unwanted" stores all the time out of hate, and it rarely gets reported on because in hate crime, it's the businesses that have no power in the community. If it's a mob violence then I'd put it in that category.

In any case, anyone looking to monkeywrench, say, a Wal-mart should not do so under the Occupy flag, as it's against the organizing practices of Occupy to engage in vandalism in general.

Let's not forget the idea is to Occupy public space and improve it (i.e. better it) by creating an island of public democracy where people can participate directly in resistance ansd/or change.

spraypaint isn't a violent crime, but it's can be a very stupid thing to do given time/place/manner. graffiti art is one thing -- that's an acceptable "manner" if the "placement" of it is acceptable. but, if your group spray paints the park where the camp is, that's strategically a stupid "place."

here's another problem with vandalism -- if people in your group employ vandalism as a form of "speech" then every act of vandalism in your community is going to be blamed on you.

in our group we've managed to keep the vandalism down to a minimum (there's been one or two problems that were quickly addressed within the group). we encourage street art, with chalk -- and fought a legal battle over it that became a decent teaching moment about speech issues and selective prosecution. if spray paint had been the issue, we wouldn't have had the media win and would have lost the opportunity to speak to the community about selective prosecution.

the community will get behind you if you're strategic in your means of direct action. but know that they are fickle. the second you take the low road you'll lose the battle of hearts and minds.

America." Hoping to do her justice, but she believes that violence against property isnt violence unless it is intended to intimidate people. Breaking Starbucks windows if there are no people inside, isnt violence.