I already spelled it out to you several times, but here you go again:

If you go back to my original comment, it was in response to someone saying, “The US army won’t drone strike a community meal,” and “the heinous acts were only possible by othering the foreigners.” If you agree that the state does sometimes successfully employ force to stop peaceful community building, then we are in agreement.

I don’t see what’s unclear about that. You might not have said that being right was a protection against force, but I didn’t think that that was at all clear from what the other person was saying.

There wasn’t really a need for any of this to be an argument. It was just a reminder that it’s not always safe, and not to rely too much on ideology for protection. If you think that’s valid, I mean, that’s what I was saying from the start and I’m not sure what I could’ve said or done differently that would better communicate that.

Yes, my point is broadly speaking about, “Revolution is hard” - in a certain, specific way. Is it not valid to look at the history of people trying to build community power and identify various unexpected dangers they encountered? It’s like, “Hey, be careful, there’s a spike pit after this jump,” “So what? You’re telling me this level has things that can kill me? No shit.” If we both agree there’s a danger there, then I don’t understand what I actually said that you take issue with.