... clearly there's good reason to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/04/the-civil-rights-movement-might-have-been-nonviolent-but-to-critics-it-was-considered-uncivil/

"The historic debate between advocates of nonviolence and self-defense obscures the reality that nonviolent civil disobedience received widespread condemnation by both defenders of segregation and moderates who personally disapproved of Jim Crow. Both groups criticized the protest tactics designed to eradicate that evil system."

My overarching point is that I'm gonna spend nary a second condemning the protesters because if you agree with their underlying *purpose* then all your time and energy needs to be spent bashing the other side. I don't see how it's beneficial to spend even a second criticizing the people who are fighting for something that you say you believe in, even if you may cringe at their tactics for whatever reason.

And speaking of comparisons, this conversation literally echoes the conversations I had with a few people in 2014 and 2020 over the Michael Brown and George Floyd murders. "I agree with them, but why do they have to burn and destroy property ?!" Why focus on that, if you agree with them ?