I'm of the opinion both violent and nonviolent means are probably necessary and there's plenty of nonviolent means of engagement. no war has been fought without support from somewhere, whether that's a national war machine or the supporting element of an insurgency. there's always logistics, resources, and well organization that has to occur.

I'm in no condition to fight myself, but over the coming decades I'm gonna have to be thinking about how much violence I'm comfortable being around and how much we can support people in the thick of it. violence is definitely present already in day to day life, but it's more of an orphan-crushing-machine kind of violence that feels more normal.

This is a silly ad hominem argument though, an indication that what he's arguing against is too valid to refute on its own merits.

Violence solves things. But by the powerless? No, historically speaking that just leads to military action, often followed by mass executions. Fighting fascism with violence is like fighting fire with gasoline. They feed off that shit. Maybe you can argue it worked in Haiti, albeit with a lot of help from yellow fever. But have you been to Haiti?

He's right that peaceful protests never solve anything. But organizing and acting as a bloc solves a lot. General strikes, civil disobedience, boycotts, even voting as a group has a strong track record of changing things.