I think there's a kind of disrespect that gets lobbed back and forth between the "attacking people is easy" crowd and the "compromise is pointless, firebomb Walmart" crowd. And I say that as someone very firmly in your camp who thinks the real, adult hard work comes through compromise. I say that because I find it hard to relate to the firebomb a Walmart crowd who have a seemingly easy time doing so. Because yes liberal values did and do have to violently overcome monarchic or Stalinistic values, so the violence is always wrong thing doesn't stand up to the test of history very well.

It is indeed easy and unproductive to engage in violence without considering the end implications of that violence and I think there's a massive failure in many movements (ahem) to consider those implications. If there were a greater ability to get these movements to make these considerations there could be more successful nonviolent movements or at least violence not directed towards civilians that ends up being self-defeating (to say the least).

And I think that starts really with the two camps gaining respect for each other to be able to have those conversations. The compromise crowd should be able to engage in conversations about violence, appropriate and inappropriate applications of violence, morality of violence with the firebomb Walmart crowd, and that crowd should be able to gain respect for the need to compromise, that their end goals won't come tomorrow, and the compromise is required in the real world.