Do you mind explaining why it’s a strawman? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m not. But we can’t really find out if you tell me I am without explaining why. That’s not a discussion in good faith.

From my perspective, war seems to be a pretty good example. War is violent almost by definition. If you argue that advocating violence is also violence itself, this implies that advocating for war is an example of violence, does it not?

Edit: To reiterate for those downvoting - I do not understand why this is a strawman, and my example seems to be relevant, reasonable and logical to a discussion of whether or not advocacy of violence is violence itself. If it is not a good example, I don’t understand how you think silently downvoting is going to meaningfully alter my perspective or provide context for others to see why I’m incorrect. I’m happy to receive your downvote, but I’d ask that you at least try to engage with my argument instead of dismissing it out of hand.