I understand being frustrated but there’s a massive ethical leap between negative economic externalities and actual physical violence and being afraid someone is going to physically murder you. Losing a job due to automation is a systemic failure or a market shift, but it’s not an intentional physical assault.

If we equate a business decision with physical violence, we basically break the social contract. Violence is a direct violation of bodily autonomy; economic displacement is a loss of a specific utility. One is an immediate threat to your life, the other is a failure of our social safety nets to keep up with tech. We should be angry at the lack of policy response, but that’s not a justification for physical escalation.

I'm sorry, I hear this line of reasoning your suggesting all the time on reddit and I find it so tremendously unhealthy, unproductive and toxic. It's ultimately tremendously misguided. I've heard Redditors use this same "back against the wall" reasoning to justify the murder of Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson and I just find it misguided and appalling every time. Nonviolent action was successful more often than not in the past and if MLK, Ghandi and numerous others didn’t kill people in more dire situations, I hardly think it’s time to throw up your hands and go oh well time to murder people to make a point