Unfortunately, for those Bureau of Land Management activists, the conversation is already over. When conversations end, battles begin. Emotions are running far too high in order to be able to have a civil discussion at the moment. Hell, we were already having the conversation about police reform for the umpteenth time, but then the riots began and all that stopped. Thus is the false dichotomy made real - you are either on the side of BLM, or you are a racist, oppressive, capitalist pig. This is why black police officers are called "race traitors," among other things. Naming, by the way, is half the battle, and what you said about Black Lives Matter, the organisation, is true of Antifa as well: "if you oppose Antifa, then you are a fascist by definition." The argument is so superficial that a stiff autumn breeze could punch a hole in it.
At the end of the day, what BLM and Antifa want is a fight, not a conversation, that's why they shut down any attempts to reason with them. The solution, as far as I'm concerned, is to get people to not join these groups in the first place - when dangerous ideologues congregate, they can whip up normal people into a frenzy and create an angry mob capable of overthrowing a nation. The crimes of the State, incidentally, are the perfect catalyst (think "Russian Revolution" here). Assuming that the current conflict burns itself out before it amounts to anything (and it looks like it basically has at this point), we can have a serious conversation afterward, and try to turn people away from BLM and Antifa. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to get someone to believe a lie than it is to convince them that they've been lied to.
Speaking of that other BLM, remember how the Left treated the protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? No vandalism, just occupation of public property during the off season. They were just "a bunch of stupid rednecks who needed to be wiped off the map."
But Occupy Wall Street? That was fine.
People protesting the COVID-19 lockdown were "idiots who wanted to murder gramma just so they could get a haircut. Damn them to hell." Same for the gun owners protesting the various new state gun control measures. Never mind how peaceful they were, they were terrorists because people felt intimidated.
But rioting in the streets and mass arson is OK.
Why is the legitimacy of a protest based not on the cause or the tactics used, but the partisan attitudes toward the ideology behind it?
There is an interesting paradox when it comes to the left: the socialist movement was created by intellectuals who intended to benefit the humble workers. The problem is that left-leaning intellectuals disdain the proletariat that they claim to champion, hence the largely bourgeois makeup of communist groups in capitalist countries. In the event that you meet a communist who is poor, expect them to use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy as soon as you point this out.
(I'm not a fan of stonetoss, but this particular comic is spot on)
I haven't even touched on the methods ("By Any Means Necessary," which is another activist organisation to stay as far away from as possible), but we've already established that we're dealing with a bunch of hypocrites. Right now, the mainstream media is controlled by the left, which is why criticism is directed entirely at right-leaning protesters. Should the right ever control the mainstream media, we'd see the exact opposite, such as a repeat of the Satanic Panic. While I'd like to think that the MSM's approval is at an all-time low, it is still the only source of information for the vast majority of the population, and people really don't like it when you tell them that their favourite news source is little more than a propaganda rag. If only getting people to diversify their news sources wasn't like pulling teeth, I don't think we'd have a lot of the problems that we do.
"We care about the workers... so pay should be based on seniority alone, competence and productivity be damned!"