Whilst your argument makes perfect sense on the grounds of morality - your argument rests on the theoretical legitimacy of both protests. That's problematic. You cannot be pro-violent protest for your own side and against it for the other. That's making a subjective judgement about the content of the violent action - not the violent action itself.

And that's where both Conservatives and Democrats are both guilty. If you're against violent action and violent protest, you should've called it out on both occasions - not justified it when the side that you agreed with perpetrated it - something you have attempted in this article. You cannot hold the same actions to different levels of accountablity based on your subjective preference of justice. That's a sliding scale that cannot be measured. By the same token neither can Conservatives. Likewise saying equivocation is disgusting doesn't make it so, that's a KafkaTrap designed to paint anyone who disagrees with you into a monster.

As it happens, I agree with your interpretation - I'm a lefty... but I also voiced disagreement at the violent actions of the BLM at the time they happened. That's the sort of thing that can get you labelled a racist pretty quickly - but, you either take a position on politically motivated violent action - you don't. If you don't - you end up arguing tit-for-tat as Conservatives and Progressives are finding out now. Reducing complex political positions to a playground game of 'but.... but... they started it' - with bottom lip wobbling etc.