I literally never encouraged violence mate. I explained a real situation where thousands of people are being given the option of (1) get brutalized, kidnapped, or killed. Or (2) defend yourself.

That's it. You didn't like that that was reality. I don't like that either. But I understand why people will resort to violence as a means of defense from state violence. They will when all other systems have failed them. And they have. We are at the stage of SS troops door knocking for papers if you didn't notice.

YOU want people to keep choosing option (1). (Or are just ignorant which is clearly your issue) So you're incorrectly labeling me as the problem for even acknowledging that (2) is an option.

That's not encouraging violence. It's acknowledging reality of what happens when people are brutalized by the state. I don't want option (1) or (2). I want an option (3) the systems of state government to defend citizens. But that's not happening. They are offering NOTHING to stop people from being attacked.

You took my criticism of the lack of any option (3) as being advocating for option (2). I'm just acknowledging reality. Are you in denial and think option (3) is "going to work later" or something? Later isn't fucking helpful when it's happening right now and (1) and (2) are the choices.

I hope that clears it up. Because I'm not going to engage in your radlib identity bullshit you just tried to inject into the conversation for no reason.

But, you are ignorant of what's going on in the streets. Watching a video isn't giving you an experience of reality mate. You say I'm wrong that you're ignorant of this and then literally admit you can't go out on the streets. You are by definition ignorant of the experience on the street. Like, holy shit, how can you say you're not? You admitted it right after saying I'm wrong for calling you ignorant. Like, this level of hubris is shocking.