Your claim was that the movements did not have violence at all, not that the violence featured in them didn’t accomplish anything. You’re moving the goalposts.
I suppose that’s a fair criticism, but you would be hard pressed to find any human activity which has always been completely 100% devoid of violence so it rather strongly implied that the [successful aspects of] the movements were devoid of riots or threats of violence.
There have been successful progressive movements that have achieved their goals through violence as well though. If you don’t limit the actions of progressives to the last century, the abolitionist movement and the civil war were incredibly violent and achieved their goals through that violence.
Your claim was that the movements did not have violence at all, not that the violence featured in them didn’t accomplish anything. You’re moving the goalposts.
I suppose that’s a fair criticism, but you would be hard pressed to find any human activity which has always been completely 100% devoid of violence so it rather strongly implied that the [successful aspects of] the movements were devoid of riots or threats of violence.
There have been successful progressive movements that have achieved their goals through violence as well though. If you don’t limit the actions of progressives to the last century, the abolitionist movement and the civil war were incredibly violent and achieved their goals through that violence.
It’s like a hammer. It can be used to build something great. Or it can bludgeon.