Many people say the CTH subreddit was full of libs before it was banned. This isn't really false, there was a bunch of them. My dialogue experience with said libs was obviously bad ; but not because they are goofy and can only quote Harry Potter. These were the kind of people to use the R-word left and right, and to attack me when I told them not to use it. They were the kind of people to fat-shame women and employing horrible sexist insults in a post about redditors bullying the shit out of some girls for saying she didn't like tall men.
This example isn't completely related to the rest of this post, but it helps set the tone a little bit. Reddit is full of libs, unironically (and unlike this place, let's be not sarcastic for a moment). If you ask the average Redditor, they'll probably tell you they don't like violence... Unless it's used against criminals. Ask them to define "criminals"? Someone who breaks the law. What if the law is unfair? Obviously they don't often ask themselves this sort of questions. There are countless en masse upvoted posts on Reddit that are basically on or off duty cops (sometimes just civilians) using violence against said criminals ; I will always remember that video of an off duty Brazilian cop shooting a store robber in the temple at point blank, and all the comments were people jerking off in circles, some trying to be quirky, bragging about their knowledge of guns (bullet to the head kills, thanks, dickhead), some just outright praising this kind of violence.
Obviously Reddit isn't a place made to help people think, so it would probably not be easy to get these folks to think about whether or not robbing a store means you deserve to die, let alone why would someone rob a store in the first place. But let's give "Reddit" the benefit of the doubt for this time. Maybe the average Redditor just believes that the police is legitimized in having the monopoly over violence. That is debatable, and many, if not most people here, including me, think this is false. But this is not exactly the subject of my post.
So, okay, maybe cops are the good guys (no), and maybe we should allow them to do whatever (no) ; even if this naive point of view was true, gun control peaceful protesting (or just peaceful) liberals would still not be non violent. And that is because violence is not just throwing rocks at glass and burning trash bins; that is physical violence, it is not the only type of violence.
When you are forced to leave your apartment after your landlord evicts you because you couldn't pay rent, that's violence. When you're forced to sleep on the streets because you can't afford a place and lost your job, that's violence. When your manager pressures you and starts harassing you for some or no reason at all, that's also violence. The fact that some get to live in million dollar mansions while not doing shit while someone who works at MacDonalds can barely eat everyday is fucked up, and violent as fuck ; and the very fact that in so many minds "Macdonald's worker" sounds like a trashy job that deserves nothing but contempt is but the product of this violence. Class violence.
Liberals and moderates are opposed to physical and verbal violence directed at the institutions that enforce this class violence. They are everything but non-violent. And by supporting police's right to pseudo-legitimated violence, they even support the physically-violent protection of an inherently violent society. Moderates are only moderates in the sense that they do not wish for changes in the Status Quo. Spoiler, the Status Quo fucking sucks, and defending it, or even not violently criticizing, is criminal. If you consider yourself a liberal or a moderate, please think about all the things you're not speaking out or taking action against. Having basic empathy skills somewhat helps.
Trying to move average libs towards a Robespierre-inspired viewpoint on structural violence doesn’t lead anywhere. Maybe they’ll eventually agree with you. They won’t do anything violent though, until you bring the revolution to their streets.
The people who need to know that far-left violence is revolutionary justice are our agitators and revolutionaries. They (mostly) already know it.
If you want to have conversations about revolutionary justice, have them with people who are already nominally left. If they radicalize further, maybe they’ll do something with it. Maybe you’ll convince each other to do something radical.
Don’t bother with libs, you can sell them on socialism, but revolutionary violence is way further down the pipeline.
Of course violence isn't a good starting point, but it often comes up in conversation. If I manage to convince someone that a change in society would be good, the natural next step is asking how can we achieve that change. Should I at that point say that we can vote it into existence, even if I don't believe it?
I recognize that radicalization happen through many stages, but trying to sell someone on just the next stage feels like I'm betraying the spirit of honest dialogue.
It depends on how radicalized you yourself are already. Be honest with them. Tell them what you think.
But if you yourself are already accepting revolutionary justice, maybe you have to re-evaluate how far away from the liberal mindset you already are.
Work with sympathy, and try to show them that the pain they’ve felt in life is felt by everyone else, too, and that this pain is what underlies all violence, which is just a reflection of it. The violence wasn’t by choice, it’s a result of the system and so on.
Why do people become terrorists? Or violent at all? We all know why. Because we all tortured them into it. Libs know this, but you have to remind them of it.
Sell them on preventing violence in the system. Don’t scare them away, remind them that you want violence even less than they themselves do.
if you have a lot of trust with them, you can pretty easily take it one step further and point out that violence to change the current system is good. don't do this with people who aren't really there with you on "the system is violent", though. that's the more important bit to get across. but once they're there, you can start to play the game of "what's more violent - allowing the present state of things to continue or stopping it by force?"