this here ^ is a common propaganda trick: we group all the people who do peacefully picket and exercise their freedom of speech (as well as free-market choices) with a small number of extremists who resort to violence, and so discredit the entire movement.
I've noticed when the Reds are targets of this, they fight back with paranoia and call the violent ones "plants", "paid instigators", or "false flag operation".
I'd like to believe people can still be reasonable and say "nah, I agree with the sentiment but I don't condone those methods. Nice try though."
No, this is a hold yourself to a higher standard "trick". Selling of stock, walking a picket line, setting fire to property. One of these things is not like the other. Being unwilling to admit that it is happening is not good either.
For all of the millions that support MAGA but did not invade the capital, it rightly brought criticism of the movement that those that did support. The same is true when people perform violent acts of protest for any group. The violent acts will always garner the most attention while diminishing the effectiveness of the non-violent acts. Doesn't matter red/blue/purple.
I just seem to be different because I'm willing to acknowledge the fact rather than trying to write some diatribe to sweep it under the rug
I've noticed when the Reds are targets of this, they fight back with paranoia and call the violent ones "plants", "paid instigators", or "false flag operation".
I'd like to believe people can still be reasonable and say "nah, I agree with the sentiment but I don't condone those methods. Nice try though."