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.