On Violence

[Belacqua]

It may feel that way, but studies of extremism show that extremists don't hurt more mainstream dissidents the way we think they might.  A violent extremist normalizes the previously unheard of and makes other lesser™ forms of that same extremism seem more acceptable.

Yes, I agree with that. The way I would frame it is to say that, in isolation, nonviolent strategies outperform violent ones. However, in the context of a greater nonviolent movement, a violent minority does have the effect of motivating otherwise resistant people towards the support of nonviolent group. Unfortunately, with the UnitedHealth shooting there isn't really a larger nonviolent movement advocating for reform. I'm not sure Bernie Sanders, for example, is still leading such a movement. There's a sense in which he's passed the baton down to A.O.C., but she hasn't really mobilized people on this issue. 

That said, even though I agree such effects exist, I would still object to the use of violence on principle and consistency grounds.

One related point:

A high-profile instance of violence like the insurance CEO shooter gets a lot of attention. And a lot of people think that what he did is actually reasonable justice. Maybe it is, I'm not sure.

But the trouble is that images are more powerful than reality, and media-hyped symbols can give the impression that something is happening when really we just have business as usual. 

So a lot of the "violence for good" that gets attention is just hype. It comforts us to think that someone is finally doing something. It's performative, gets a lot of attention, gives people fake hope, and then nothing.