>>283214995
>>283217606
How is any of that shit you listed "bootlicking"? Do you even know what that means? Are you sure you're not just projecting? I didn't watch the show and I'm missing a lot of context for what you're saying. However;
>There were safer ways to achieve freedom
This is wrong. This is always wrong. There is only ever ONE way to achieve freedom and that is to TAKE it. It cannot be given and it is NEVER "safe". And unless it's you doing it, you have fuckall room to criticize their methods

You list all those things he "could" have done. Yeah, I'm sure they "could" have done all sorts of things back in the 1770s, too. Doesn't mean shit. It is the nature of the oppressed or those who believe themselves oppressed to raise arms against their supposed oppressors. It is inevitable that there will be people born with a spark of rebellion that turns into the blaze of revolution. You can fight against them if you disagree, but only statist bootlickers (You) start whinging about how "bad" violence is and how they TOTALLY could've been free if only they'd written one more petition or done one more attempt at soft power instead of starting to shoot.

Spouting moral grandstanding against violence is the luxury of the faggot playing armchair general. You're not Squealer and you've not suffered exactly like him. Violence is amoral and to engage in violence is a cosmic right that exists so long as people are capable of violence. Tyranny can exist only in situations of a monopoly on violence. Thus, widespread capacity for violence being in the hands of the individual is a good thing.
He may have lost, but whether he was "right" is irrelevant. The only thing that gets tested is who's left.

>>283217606
>>283221597
>>283223062
>his MOTHER, nooo, think of his poor heckin' mother!
It's a fucking appeal to emotion, that's what's wrong with it.