You are being disingenuous here. I’m not shifting their argument. Here is their full comment with annotations -
Sooner or later, a trans woman forced through male puberty by arbitrary rules/culture-war politics will snap
Annotation 1: politicians making incorrect choices are going to force the hand of activists for this cause…
and attempt to assassinate the PM or health minister.
A2: which will inevitably lead to political violence against members of the government
Then the other boot will come down: the Daily Mail will demand a crackdown, and the usual voices in the Guardian will join in, and the government will follow.
A3: Then the media will blame the activists instead of themselves
In what world is that not advocating for political violence?
Let’s replace the issue in question and see if it still sounds ok to you:
Sooner or later, a white nationalist forced to experience mass imigration due to arbitrary rules/culture-war politics will snap and attempt to assassinate the PM or home secretary. Then the other boot will come down: the Guardian will demand a crackdown, and the usual voices in the Daily Mail will join in, and the government will follow.
You are being disingenuous here. I’m not shifting their argument. Here is their full comment with annotations -
Annotation 1: politicians making incorrect choices are going to force the hand of activists for this cause…
A2: which will inevitably lead to political violence against members of the government
A3: Then the media will blame the activists instead of themselves
In what world is that not advocating for political violence?
Let’s replace the issue in question and see if it still sounds ok to you:
Does the above sound acceptable?
It’s simple, the government oppressing minorities will usually lead to said minority group lashing out.
This is what happened in Palestine.
This is not an argument for violence, but for government action to prevent violence by ceasing oppression of minority groups.
Simple.
Your argument here is just saying, “Political violence is justified if a minority are being oppressed.”
Maybe you are tweaking it to be, “Political violence is to be expected if a minority are being oppressed.”
This is literally the dictionary definition of advocating for something.
Advocate, verb, to publically suggest an idea, development or way of doing something.
I mean, I believe that, but that’s not my point. The point is that minority populations will strike back, regardless of advocacy.
That’s literally the argument, though. You misunderstood it.
The 2nd argument there, the one you claim to be making, is advocating for political violence.
I don’t think you’re debating in good faith here.
How is saying “people will eventually fight if oppressed hard enough” the same as saying “oppressed people should fight their oppressors?”
The first statement is analysis of cause and effect, the second is advocacy. You’re intentionally misframing it to spread a narrative.