Among the many problems with libs who pontificate about the moral superiority of non-violence are:
The assumption that oppressed people have the privilege of deciding whether or not their struggle should be violent. More often than not the violence comes from the bourgeois state who uses its formidable capacity for violence to quell dissent.
The assumption that the status quo is non-violent and that violence starts once some protester throws a brick. Shilling for imperialist wars, wrecking the planet and getting rich by keeping people in poverty is assumed to be non-violent whereas breaking the window of a McDonald's is assumed to be violent.
Nah, IMO it is mostly based on fear too. If you accept violence exists and is practiced as a matter of course in every human society in order for it to function then you have to accept you either participate in it or suffer from it.
And so the easiest way to cope is to pretend there is no violence, if you are not ready to die or kill for what you believe, not because of lack of conviction but simply because of comfort(being a warrior is historically the most short lived occupation).
It is very similar to the problem of evil for religious Christians, accepting the premise means the possibility God isn't good forcing you to make your own moral decision that will naturally inevitably either conform or conflict with your society, again a matter of comfort.
Among the many problems with libs who pontificate about the moral superiority of non-violence are:
Nah, IMO it is mostly based on fear too. If you accept violence exists and is practiced as a matter of course in every human society in order for it to function then you have to accept you either participate in it or suffer from it. And so the easiest way to cope is to pretend there is no violence, if you are not ready to die or kill for what you believe, not because of lack of conviction but simply because of comfort(being a warrior is historically the most short lived occupation).
It is very similar to the problem of evil for religious Christians, accepting the premise means the possibility God isn't good forcing you to make your own moral decision that will naturally inevitably either conform or conflict with your society, again a matter of comfort.
I'm reminded of the BLM protests which were plagued by police violence, reactionary violence, and liberal subversion.
Inevitably, they were criticized as "too violent" while these other gross got a pass.