Regardless of whether or not you think it's valid, it's clearly very effective. No major social change for the better has EVER happened in history without such actions.
It seems to go like this:
1. One group calmly demands some sensible thing. They might do some protests.
2. The powers that be say no, because they like the status quo. They might arrest some people for peaceful protesting.
3. A different group does some violence.
4. The powers that be acquiesce to the first group because the alternative is continued violence. The second group has no basis to continue the violence once the first group is acquiesced to.
5. History paints the first group as the ones who caused change and the second group as bad people who shouldn't have done what they did.
It's got to be one of those psychological sales tricks. Door in the face technique?
Anyway, this is the ONLY way that regular people have EVER caused things to change for the better, so take that into consideration. (Whatever counter-example you're thinking of is probably not actually a counter-example)
It seems to go like this:
1. One group calmly demands some sensible thing. They might do some protests.
2. The powers that be say no, because they like the status quo. They might arrest some people for peaceful protesting.
3. A different group does some violence.
4. The powers that be acquiesce to the first group because the alternative is continued violence. The second group has no basis to continue the violence once the first group is acquiesced to.
5. History paints the first group as the ones who caused change and the second group as bad people who shouldn't have done what they did.
It's got to be one of those psychological sales tricks. Door in the face technique?
Anyway, this is the ONLY way that regular people have EVER caused things to change for the better, so take that into consideration. (Whatever counter-example you're thinking of is probably not actually a counter-example)