Violence is not categorically bad, I don't think. Rarely, violence is necessary in self defense. It might be the option of last resort, but sometimes violence can stop worse consequences.
I'm not justifying any particular actions that anyone has taken in specific, just objecting to the categorization that it is always bad. (For example, someone suffering from domestic violence might strike back in an effort to escape.)
Violence is not categorically bad. Violence is a tactic that is sometimes necessary and sometimes good. For example if you are being attacked, it is completely justifiable to defend yourself, violently if necessary.
The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.
Agreed. Additionally, it's important to recognize that "peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive -- but they were explicitly non-violent.
Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.
I'm not justifying any particular actions that anyone has taken in specific, just objecting to the categorization that it is always bad. (For example, someone suffering from domestic violence might strike back in an effort to escape.)