General Discussion

of people against a sane adversary. Almost all of the counter-protesters in Charlottesville were completely non-violent. A few were not, and took the battle to the nazis who were there. In that particular instance, non-violence by the counter-protesters was the response, and it worked just fine.

However, non-violence is a principle that is totally useless against an group of people that seeks to mete out violence as its primary strategy. Non-violence in such situations gets people dead and injured. That occurred with the driver of the car that ran down people in a street in Charlottesville.

Where non-violent opposition is effective and does not result in a failure to respond to actual violence, it is the strategy of choice. However, if the force being opposed is set on using violence, regardless of non-violent opposition, then it is not a useful strategy and accomplishes little.

When someone points a gun at you with the intent to shoot you, if you stand silently in defiance, you are likely to die or be gravely injured. If you run away as fast as you can, you have a greater chance to survive. If you shoot your attacker before he can fire and end the threat, you may save not only your own life, but perhaps the lives of others.

Non-violent opposition works well when the threat is not deadly. It works poorly when the people you oppose seek to kill you as their strategy. In the best case, you should avoid being in that situation. If you find yourself in that situation, however, you should either flee or defend yourself in a way that is appropriate to the attack. Fleeing is nonviolent. Standing defenseless, however, is simply foolish.