But whenever I think I've said something I should not have, it hurts me more to realize that, because I can never know what my words have done.

What about when said stubbornness can cause harm to others? I could use quite a bit of apathy right now, because I fear that my actions are currently doing harm to those I care about. I think the best thing now would be for me to sleep for a couple of months and then see how things are going.

Apathy would be the only way to tackle the uncertainty that plagues me.

It's not the only way. But this is a General Discussion thread, so I will butt out of offering more advice unless you post in the Community Support forum.

I made that mistake once, and it ended up upsetting not only me, but others as well, and I get the sense that this is on the same course, so I'll just drop it altogether as I always do.

well I think this is very much in line with the OP: violence vs non-violence. I think what happened on this thread a few posts ago is a marvelous example: we (I mean myself & Aquaplant) were just about to start a verbal war (as if this forum hadn't seen enough of them) - but extinguished it right in time opting for respect & impartiality. If people were a bit more willing to listen to each other with respect there would be less need for violent - or even non-violent - protests.

The ability to admit one's mistake & the desire to set things right score high in my book. People like this are hard to find (I do voluntary work with prisoners, I know :P) About emotional muteness... erm i don't know if I got right what you meant to say but if it's like wanting to be with oneself, "seeing yourself from inside" - this could be a good thing at times. Like stepping away & looking at things from a broader angle without being too involved. But this is definitely deviating.

I agree about "neither positive nor negative" - like a knife is neither good nor bad as such, different people use it for different purposes. As for stubborness / apathy... again, i'd say depends on what we mean by these terms - and also, I guess, there is a right moment for everything. But you are right, this is probably more fit on a Community Support thread.

holy cow! :shock: who is this RDA person? sorry I couldn't see the font very well.

It's an internet meme.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica..../John_Pike.jpg
People photoshop that into various images.

Well it is an internet meme now, but originally it was a police officer who peppersprayed students sitting in protest on the ground in a peaceful protest. Now this act has become symbolic for many such actions by the police force against nonviolent protesters in the past days and actually years.

I think regarding violent or nonviolent protests - in a way it all depends on the situation, the number of people and the opponents on what type of protest is fitting - and maybe protesting just does not cut it because after all any protests are basically meant to change the minds of those in power - if they dont give a bleep about that, no form of protest can win. This is key, I think. If you have someone in a position of power and he does horrible things what can one do - if he is human enough and if his position allows him to act differently, then peaceful protesting can work. If he is either a psychopath or if his position does not allow him to make decisions (because he will be replaced by someone else then or that would actually be against the law), few protesting can succeed unless one really manages to impair operations enough to force the ones in power to stop them.
Another distinction is if there are a lot of people sharing the resentments or if it is only a few. For example a lot of people in Germany oppose nuclear power, so there can be protests with 100.000 people. As long as the government did not see any other chance than to keep nuclear power for economic reasons, that protesting did not help (because as I said before the decision was not so much with human beings). Under the right conditions later, that protest succeeded. Before that, all that people could do was to impair operations (nuclear waste transport) in a way that makes each such operation a big deal. All of this works only in a mass movement though. In Japan, there used to be only 1000 anti nuclear protesters or so. They would have had no chance to stand up against anyone. But the same is true for indigenous people (usually only a handful of people oppose a majority of people in a country to take away land). And it is true for other more radical positions - there will not be a mass movement to deconstruct all dams to let rivers run free or to dismantle industrial agriculture because the majority of people think that they cannot live with less (or without) electricity or with a different value and choice of food. So there will be a handful of ecologists, earth scientists like myself and activists plus some indigenous people saying that it is incredibly destructive to build dams and to do industrial agriculture but there is no mass movement because what has to be done in our eyes goes actually against what a majority of people in this country wants. And people in Africa do not make decisions here. And nonhuman people also make no decisions here. So it is the ones who benefit from the exploitation who would have to form a mass movement against exploitation and by that against their own privilege. This wont work unless you promise them they can keep all these privileges in another way, which is what people claim when they go on about how solar and wind power can replace coal and nuclear without making any changes in lifestyle or how one can actually buy "organic papayas" ("organically" grown and then transported by airplane of course).
I dont think violent protesting is any more helpful in these cases. It can be - if it is not protest but real struggle, if people occupy factories, take over ships or destroy roads so that company trucks cannot reach the construction site. Most of these tactics were used and most of them caused delays, some even caused the company to retreat because the project was becoming too dangerous (economically).

So I guess what I am saying is that it depends a lot on the situation.

If that person walking between these silent faces staring at her still has a conscience, if she has the means to do something differently and can be psychologically affected by protesters, then this certainly is a great choice of protest. Does anyone know by the way if it did anything? Did that action cause anything to go differently?

Oh and for nonviolent protesting and civil disobedience like the occupy-movement - you end up on the terrorism list. Which means of course that in theory some parts of their basic rights do not apply in some states.

Police include Occupy movement on

Well isn't a terrorist someone who opposes the system? Disobedience means that you oppose the system, which means the system identifies you as a terrorist, Q.E.D.

No.

terrorism (usually uncountable; plural terrorisms)
1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

You could argue that scaremongering with false information falls under 3, although it is generally not considered such. In addition, even if no person is physically harmed, it is generally still considered terrorism.

I think the term terrorist has become a joke as much as the term racist these days, and is thrown around without any rhyme or reason to forward certain political agendas, because both terms generate emotional responses and are thus very effective. To demonize your opponents so that you get the support from the ignorant masses and all that.