I live in a city where within living memory, literal Nazis invaded with tanks and dragged off tens of thousands of our citizens to horrible deaths in concentration camps.

Many people in the world hoped that the Great War would be the war to end all wars, but it would have been morally unacceptable not to resist the fucking Nazis by all means possible including violence.

I think the eventual point of the article will be that the Democrats are too passive, but you completely undermine it early on with all this "moral high ground" emptiness.

Imagine this world is instead a science fiction movie where a tiny number of ultra-rich people are systematically destroying their planet's biosphere, not even for food, water, shelter, sex, or entertainment, but simply to win a meaningless numerical game called The Money.

Our heroes are tasked with saving the world, and one of them gives that little speech: “Violence is only ever a short-term solution. Once you pick up a gun, the argument is over, and you’re the one who’s lost it.”

Unfortunately, their opponents have no such scruples, and our heroes lose completely. The end of the ecosystem. Titles.

Who would watch that movie and clap at the end?

Would the viewer really say, “They might have lost a million species, but at least they kept the moral high ground. Industrial capitalism managed to scour large areas of the surface of the Earth and destabilize our environment for the rest of time, but it was more important for our heroes never to get their hands dirty”?