The point of the comment is that there is no such thing as 'good violence' just as there is no such thing as 'hate speech'. There is just violence. There is just speech. You try to muddle those simple things and you end up with where are today: confused population unable to reason through their way through otherwise simple reality.
I want to offer you a moment to reconsider this comment. It adds nothing to this discussion. It does not refute my point. It does not undermine it. It does nothing really except maybe confuse the reader.
Unless the latter is the point, consider an edit that addresses my point directly. I am only human. It is possible that there is a flaw in my reasoning. It is possible coffee did not hit me yet.
Thank you for your generous offer but I will decline.
What the comment does in its original form is draw attention to the nonsensical cowardice of refusing to take a stand on any issue. "There's no such thing as good violence" has you condemning slave revolutions for example. "There's no such thing as hate speech" refuses to acknowledge the forces and choices that led to historical atrocities and abdicates power to notice and prevent them. There's no future in this enlightened centrism, nothing to refute because it refuses to take a stand.
My friend, word is word. Violence is violence. Adding moralistic value to either solves nothing, but adds problems for the society as a whole. If anything, it is cowardly to run from the lingua franca that is violence and try to excuse it by the current equivalent of 'gott mit uns'. Good luck out there.
