Serious question. Does civil disobedience still work when you're trying to fight an enemy capable of nasty things?
Probably not. Especially when you have weak leadership.
The rallies, protests & show in numbers isn't going to work. You had a bunch of agitators beat & harass them & people are suddenly afraid to gather.
Somewhere, someone out there is plotting to fight the dirty way. When it does happen, you're going to denounce their actions but deep inside you know it made a dent on your enemy.
You need someone to light the fire. You just don't know it yet.
If you want to go the Gandhi route, rally all 74+ million supporters of a movement to commit civil disobedience then you might actually have a chance. Until then, nothing is going to happen.
There may be so many who are ready to rally & support but very few are actually brave enough to be the catalyst for real change.
The few brave souls - you're not going to like what they'll do but you'll come to find out it's what you need.
@lo You're not wrong, but the problem is that when someone goes down that road, it never seems to end. You can't have nice things without moral people.
That seems to be the problem with idealists when they're faced with an enemy that doesn't have morals. Those few brave ones will end up like the people they hate or continue to get stepped on. It's a hard call to make
@lo There is a time when violence is the right, moral action. I think it is important to have clearly defined lines in the sand for these situations. When I've brought this up to my friends, they agree, but don't think we're quite there yet. I'm more on the side of planning rather than reacting.
@daniel
I agree. It isn't quite there yet. Most would obviously rather it not come to violent means. However, when response to efforts are stagnant & losing momentum, some people are not going to accept it. That's how radicals are bred.
74 million voters/supporters is a lot of people - where are they?