If you have not realised by now that nonviolent disruption is society's best defence against injustice - its best warning system - you're not paying attention.

This ignores violence as self-defense throughout history, while going a step further by smugly saying the viewer is not paying attention. Declaring it the “best” is liberal ignorance.

Nonviolence is preferred for obvious reasons, but it also assumes that your opposition isn’t an unhinged group of death cult enthusiasts that have employed absolute morons (ICE) to do their bidding for them, and will use violence against you as a first option without even batting an eyelash.

These conversations need to stop being soapboxes for angry liberals that ignorantly do the lip service of the ruling class. This can be an organized thing with multiple wings that don’t needlessly and smugly declare one effort stupid, while others are good. Survival requires weighing all options. If and when you’re painted into a corner, you should be prepared.

All the stress on the non violent part has caused disruptions to be ignorable. The non violent protests are supposed to signify coming violent opposition if the message is not received. Removing the threat prevents any effectiveness.

If you have not realised by now that nonviolent disruption is society’s best defence against injustice – its best warning system – you’re not paying attention.

Reading this again, I have to admit I don't fully agree with this quote, in the sense that I couldn't claim that "nonviolent disruption is society’s best defence against injustice". I could easily say something like its a warning system, but definately not the "best".

Still, I do believe that non-violent disruption can be a useful part of the "tool-box" for change in a society, and sometimes a stepping-stone.