I think a program of study that adopts a pre-determined strategy such as non-violent de-escalation is doomed for failure when it meets another person who does not share the same belief system. This is usually the case in most situations that involve violence anyway!
My only point about comprehensive self defense is that I assume it should begin at prevention, which includes attempts to de-escalate where time allows. This says nothing to the primary(?) point of the thread though.
To my mind this thread was started more to be about the frustrations that can come from folks who would "transcend" (e.g. side-step) the topic of physical effectiveness with conversations about (pre-emptive) non-violent things like keeping calm, partly under the notion that you can get that kind of thing anywhere, and seemed to be suggesting in places that it probably doesn't have a place in self defense conversations.
I understand the frustration that comes from wanting to talk about one thing and having a bunch of non-answers (or what might even just seem like non-answers until later). I view it as part of the process though. The points about how to deal with stress/annoyances/whatever can be valuable ones. Stresses (mild annoyances or otherwise) and unfamiliar situations are crucial to creative growth, particularly in anything which can be described as generally chaotic...and discussions over the internet are certainly that. We can disengage and hope we don't have to deal with it or we can engage it and hope to create the change we want to see. The particulars of the situation will determine which choice is the more practical for us.
I agree with the idea that some folks will not allow themselves to de-escalate...some have made pre-determined assumptions and choices that are incredibly difficult (if not actually impossible) to change.