system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Violence and the threat of violence are the most potent forces in political life.

I have come to the realization that peaceful protests yield almost no positive effect for the protesters, yet when there is a riot or people threatening with firearms suddenly there is talk about change. Violence and the threat of violence are the most potent forces in political life. 

People say that problems cannot be solved by the use of force, that  violence, as the saying goes, is not the answer. That adage appeals to  our moral sensibilities. But whether or not violence is the answer  depends on the question being asked. For better or worse, violence  usually provides the most definitive answers to three major questions of  political life: statehood, territoriality, and power. Violent  struggle—war, revolution, terrorism—more than any other immediate  factor, determines what nations will exist and their relative power,  what territories they occupy, and which groups will exercise power  within them.
gpt
Generally speaking a person in power is not for what they can do, but for who support their decision. So for instance technically Lex Luther (Smart Guy, who good at getting people to do things politically,) is better then Superman (Man who can do anything except deal with all the political backlash he gets)

When you are protesting you are basically saying to the person in power, we will not do what you say, and the effectiveness of a political protest is basically based upon how effectively that disrupts the power structure the person in power has set up.

So for example the nonviolent protest of the "Montgomery bus boycott" was basically. You treat Black people who ride the bus poorly, we make up 75% of the people taking the bus, you require this money to run the city, we are not going to pay this money by not taking the bus, this will cause the city infrastructure to collapse. Therefore you will lose control and you will not get it back till we can ride in the bus fairly.

This protest had the added benefit that there wasn't much the city could do, there is no requirement for people to take the bus, the Black people had legitimate grievances, etc. If was difficult for people in Montgomery to seek outside help or support. And it was difficult for the people to gain support from the white citizens cause it was hard to make an argument to force people to ride the bus.

If instead of boycott they set the busses on fire, which would more or less accomplish the same goal, but it would have a political message which would have resonated with federal and state government as well as the white voters. They could have immediately arrested the people in charge (In point of fact if they didn't they would lose control) and the government who retain their political position.

So when people say Peaceful Protest yield no results it's often cause

A.) Their protest have no effect on the existing power structures (The issue with the current racial protests is for the most part the people in power actively support them)

B.) Their not giving measurable objective that the people in power can do (This is a problem with decentralized protest movement that it's often impossible to have a dialog about what people what changed)

C.) That the cost of changing the thing the person is protest, is more expensive/more work then dealing with the protests (Occupy WallStreet) so you end up with a siege.

The police and the government are notorious for escalating violence with protestors (I.E. having protestors become violent) specifically because it's beneficial to them, as it allows them to use more physical force when disrupting them.