Obviously the ideal amount of political violence should be zero. If any other option exists, I think those must be taken first.

But sometimes the status quo is violence, and letting the status quo continue doing violence will overtime do more harm than one act of political violence. So mathematically, there must be some point where some violence is worth the cost of less harm in the future.

Not civil disobedience, but I agree. Unfortunately creating communities is probably a bigger ask than getting arrested in a protest.

Everyone sits on multiple spectra for what they care about, and where their thresholds for acting are

Right, so what would push people over that threshold now?

Not against the idea in spirit, but that’s not distributed and not feasible for many people who live far from corporate HQs.

Well, that’s part of my point. Everyone who stopped eating at Chick Fil A stopped 10+ years ago, everyone else doesn’t care. Anyone willing to boycott is already boycotting, and they can’t boycott any harder until we have a method of acquiring necessities from somewhere else.

Right, that was just an example of things anyone with a couple friends could do locally that would still accumulate at scale.

That’s true, but at the same time, aren’t most people already boycotting what they can? I think anyone who feels bad about supporting shitty companies are already avoiding them when they can, and if they can’t, well there isn’t much more to do until we hit mutual aid networks.