That's because it was supposed to be. I have a (bad) habit of using reductive arguments that I learned in my teen years and it served me well in scoring points against idiots through college. You are correct that simply copying the strategy of your opponent will likely fail, but I thought that was such an obvious point as to be worthless, at least without providing an alternative.
I didn't feel the need to expand on this because it wasn't relevant. [...] My primary point behind this was to make sure that people understand that political violence is not something anyone on the right can actually take advantage of.
And my primary point is that telling someone who is considering it not to engage in political violence and failing to suggest an alternative course of action is worse than doing nothing. As you mention there are lots of people (though not enough, IMO) doing what needs to be done if it is going to be possible for us to win back the West through non-violent means, but if someone is considering violence in order to achieve anti-leftist political and social goals, they either haven't considered the peaceful alternatives, or they have rejected them and need to be shown that there is at least a possibility that non-violent means can succeed.
To be clear, I don't think you're wrong, just that you argument you present is ineffective at achieving the goal you appear to have (that being dissuading those who are against the left from engaging in political violence.)
t I thought that was such an obvious point as to be worthless, at least without providing an alternative.
Yeeeaaahhhh. It's definitely an obvious point, but it's not a point that is obvious to most people. I'm using it to reject the first bad assumption I see: "We can just copy their strategy and/or tactics.", and I'm also using it to lay foundation for the rest of the argument: "Since just copying a strategy doesn't work, why do we see political violence being used at all? Answer: as a weapon for the side who has violence being done to them."
And my primary point is that telling someone who is considering it not to engage in political violence and failing to suggest an alternative course of action is worse than doing nothing.
I don't think it is, because I think that there are far too many subversives and infiltrators attempting to incite violence.
or they have rejected them and need to be shown that there is at least a possibility that non-violent means can succeed.
This is why black pills are enemy propaganda.
To be clear, I don't think you're wrong, just that you argument you present is ineffective at achieving the goal you appear to have (that being dissuading those who are against the left from engaging in political violence.)
It's a fair criticism, but I wanted to get it out there.
That's because it was supposed to be. I have a (bad) habit of using reductive arguments that I learned in my teen years and it served me well in scoring points against idiots through college. You are correct that simply copying the strategy of your opponent will likely fail, but I thought that was such an obvious point as to be worthless, at least without providing an alternative.
And my primary point is that telling someone who is considering it not to engage in political violence and failing to suggest an alternative course of action is worse than doing nothing. As you mention there are lots of people (though not enough, IMO) doing what needs to be done if it is going to be possible for us to win back the West through non-violent means, but if someone is considering violence in order to achieve anti-leftist political and social goals, they either haven't considered the peaceful alternatives, or they have rejected them and need to be shown that there is at least a possibility that non-violent means can succeed.
To be clear, I don't think you're wrong, just that you argument you present is ineffective at achieving the goal you appear to have (that being dissuading those who are against the left from engaging in political violence.)
Yeeeaaahhhh. It's definitely an obvious point, but it's not a point that is obvious to most people. I'm using it to reject the first bad assumption I see: "We can just copy their strategy and/or tactics.", and I'm also using it to lay foundation for the rest of the argument: "Since just copying a strategy doesn't work, why do we see political violence being used at all? Answer: as a weapon for the side who has violence being done to them."
I don't think it is, because I think that there are far too many subversives and infiltrators attempting to incite violence.
This is why black pills are enemy propaganda.
It's a fair criticism, but I wanted to get it out there.