One of the things I hate most about liberalism is how it weaponises civility and recontextualises it as interpersonal interactions that happen in a vacuum. There's no greater system or set of conditions at play, people are just nice to each other in daily life or they aren't. They spontaneously do violence because of some moral flaw or they don't because they're individually virtuous. But when the issue is a deprivation of needs, that is profound violence. If you punch me in the mouth or say I don't deserve dental care I lose the same teeth either way, one just allows people with weak arms to punch more victims. We don't live on some island of stability surrounded by chaos, but in an artificially constructed trolley problem. The liberals who tell me I'm an unhinged radical own the trolley company, laid the tracks, set the route, and tied everyone to the tracks. They'll stand behind me at the lever and say I'm the problem if I don't choose the track with fewer people. But that isn't the basic question of the trolley problem or its obvious solution. I'm not going to apologise for asking why the fuck there's a trolley that has to kill people to provide transportation. If anyone has to die and the system tells me that I'm a bad person unless I want the harm reduction track, I'm just going to kill the one person driving the trolley and the CEO benefiting from its operation. I did not choose to be put in front of that lever and I'm not going to pretend that it should be there just because some ghoul can profit off of it.

While they chide me for being violent, they vote for wars I protest and against public health I advocate for. They simultaneously insist that a landlord should be able to destroy their tenants' lives if they don't get 30% or more of those peoples' paycheques for doing nothing. They're committing ecocide and feeding bullshit solutions to the public so that they can profit off the death of the biosphere. That is so morally insane, so divorced from any kind of ecological thinking, that supporting it would be the worst thing imaginable if that person had to stand on the mountain of their victims to call me uncivil. The system they're protecting milks normal people for their bloody sweaty tears, hunts minorities like deer, and is burning down the world around me for profits my community will never see.

At some point I stopped bothering with that question and just accepted that the tanks were great because the alternative was this. Then I asked your second question. If Marxism was so intuitive for me and I had naive conceptions of his ideas just from really liking dogs and anthropology, why isn't that the norm? It's the same kind of dynamic with civility swapped for ontology by a system that denies people a philosophy education so they don't know why ontology is important. Thinking ecologically, in terms of systems and relationships, is a threat to an unecological system those liberals benefit from. Thinking intersectionally undermines the ways that system divides the people it controls. Thinking materialistically is such a basic threat to all of the magical thinking behind power structures that half the people in power can't admit evolution and germs exist because it would destroy them. All of these things are violently suppressed when we do it, and I only do it because I'm a neurotic person that questions everything. The public doesn't question its alienation because that's mediated by the system and channeled into things I just don't have an interest in- sports, hobby clubs, religions, political parties, fandoms, myopic wealth hoarding. Their spectacle relationship is different in the absence of understanding the mechanics of spectacle, but that doesn't mean that spectacle is wrong. Apologising for the way I think would be like a climate scientist saying "I'm sorry" after people call them an alarmist. They have a polymathic understanding of issues that other people have distractions from and incentives to deny. For half a century they've been radicalising and will only be proven correct in doing so. The people who called them alarmists or hippies or pinkos built their glass house without a foundation. When it collapses because the materialist pointed at material things they ignored, they won't any less wrong. They'll just starve to death as a result of not understanding the issue enough to intervene in it, spending that time insulting the alarmists because they made those people feel bad.

Wouldn't go back, will never make excuses. If someone looks at the world and says "this is fine", they're either oblivious to the point that they're a child or they're morally feral and entertaining them is just allowing them to tie more people to the trolley tracks. I'm not going to be a silent or stupid victim.