Ugh, here we go again with this speech.

Without a doubt, at some level, society and ideology is ok with violence against some groups, even offensively. For example, if someone in Iraq decides to kill a person who most definitely is a terrorist with confirmed orders to blow up civilian areas, that would be an overall good thing. Same could be said about the oppression of ISIS through violence. Maybe on a different note, you could say the same about suppression of Nazis like in Germany or violence against them in the World War.

​

The 4 primary factions of an anti-oppression movement are 1) peaceful protesters, who follow any rule thrown at them, even unfair ones, 2) the civilly disobedient, who act against the law but not in immoral ways, such as sitting down on an order to move, or running away from an attempted arrest. MLK was arrested 10 times. 3) The self-defense violent, who would only turn violent if pushed. They would basically not consider themselves pushovers, such that if you were to try and shoot tear gas onto a peaceful protest these people would be the ones left throwing bricks back and staying in place. These reactors are very, very often painted as rioters even though a great amount of the time it's reactive to the police's actions. Malcom X was here. 4) The proactively violent, who have declared war upon the enemy of their choosing, and will seek the destruction of their infrastructure or the death of their people (in this case the police).

​

Now, you've probably chosen what side is the "better" side in a war before. The US Revolutionary War is an easy example. Violence in reality is not black and white though, it's just comparative. For the average protester, a comparison between a police precinct burning and a protester being shot for resistance means they'd pick the first. That's all there is to it.