Two Things Can Be True At Once
Some generalizing can be correct (all cops and military are abusers), some can be incorrect (generalizing about who people are based on their identities)
Some violence can be morally good (violence against enslavers), some can be bad (oppressive violence)
Some self-defense can be justifiable (abused fighting back against abusers), some can be unjustifiable (abusers defending themselves)
Some censorship can be justifiable (censoring colonizers), some can be unjustifiable (censoring people who speak up about colonization)
Some exclusion can be righteous (reparations, free money but only to Black people), some exclusion can be evil (apartheid)
Context always matters.
Saying “all censorship and violence is bad” is simply incorrect. Saying “all entities have a right to self-defense” is also incorrect. The enslaver/abuser has no right to defend themselves against the consequences of their actions. Defend themselves against who? The people they abused who are reacting to that abuse? Defend themselves how? By hurting their victims more? If they didn’t want people trying to kill them (or stop them in some other way), they should’ve thought of that before they decided to abuse/enslave/colonize. Are we really going to say abusers have a right to rest and comfort, and that the abused should never interrupt that?
Further, some conclusions can feel/seem logical while simultaneously being completely and totally illogical (“all murder is bad”, “racism is a social construct therefore the effects of racism are made-up”, “it was necessary to drop nuclear bombs on japan during WWII”, are examples of illogic at its finest)