Boycotts have traditionally been an acceptable form of peaceful protest, a valid expression of disagreement with a company or brand’s policies or actions. They serve as a way for consumers to withdraw their support and send a message that they do not approve of what a company is doing or an ideology that it advocates.

One of the most famous examples in recent history was when Bud Light entered a promotional partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a man pretending to be a woman. Naturally, this decision outraged many Americans, leading many conservatives to spend their money on competing products from other companies instead.

The protest remained peaceful. People simply stopped purchasing Bud Light products. It worked.

By contrast, activists on the Left have become known for their consistent use of violence and destruction as their chosen form of protest. The latest target of their wrath is Elon Musk’s electric vehicles — including anyone who sells them, buys them, or drives them.

From spraying bullets into a car dealership in Oregon to a recent New York Post report that “several ‘incendiary devices’ were found at a Tesla dealership in Texas,” it is clear that those who act on behalf of the Democrat agenda have been led to believe that criminal behavior is justified and that they do not plan to stop anytime soon.

And why would they? According to their own brand of logic, the boycott of Bud Light and the terroristic attacks against Tesla are the same thing.

In a column for Newsweek, one columnist drew comparisons and contrasts between the two movements. Surprisingly, the actions carried out by the respective members of each group did not top the list of what made these protests distinct from each other, but rather “the ideologies of those lashing out at the companies.” He eventually concedes that the “Bud Light boycotts also never descended into violence and vandalism.” Still, there was a “but” coming — he pointed to a video shared online by Kid Rock in which the singer is seen shooting at cases of the popular beer with his own gun.

The implication is that shooting at a case of beverages Kid Rock bought himself is the same as the man who launched several Molotov cocktails into a car dealership and then returned to fire bullets from his AR-15 into the windows.

Unfortunately, some figures in the media and the political left also encourage this distortion of the definition of protest.

Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger posted a video on X, giving his own skewed interpretation of how the two parties handle disagreements. “Why is it,” asked Kinzinger, “that whenever Republicans decide to boycott a company like Bud Light or Disney, they’re doing it because they’re victims of that company. Yet when America decides to boycott a company like Tesla because the CEO is running around telling Americans what they can and can’t live without so that he can have a tax break, then all of the sudden, they’re victims again.”

The same distortion of reality came from left-winger Jessica Tarlov on Fox News’s “The Five.” In a conversation about the violent uprisings against Tesla, she drew the same false equivalence between destroying property and choosing not to buy a product. “We talked about Dylan Mulvaney, a single trans influencer who was on a single can of beer for months,” Tarlov complained. “And that can of beer set the conservative movement on proverbial fire, rooting against at least half an American company — the Anheuser-Busch side of things. Kid Rock [was] out there doing target practice with Budweiser cans. People [were] vowing to decimate that brand … so is that okay, or that was wrong, too, and everyone wants to mea culpa over that?”

Greg Gutfeld rightfully responded, “No one was intimidated not to buy Bud Light.”

Similarly, no one was chasing down Target employees in their uniforms and running them off the road or firing bullets into the glass doors of their stores.

This dangerous line of thinking fuels the flawed belief that destroying property and putting people in harm’s way can be an acceptable way to express frustration and that doing so will further the causes you claim to be fighting for.

However, the truth is that these actions are not only ineffective but also backfire. Rather than convincing others to join a cause, violent protests alienate potential supporters and push those who already disagree further away. They’re not only counterproductive but also create a cycle of fear and division. Instead of fostering understanding, they widen the gap between sides. This is becoming increasingly clear to many Americans who feel that the Left’s tactics have gone too far.

The difference between a peaceful boycott and a violent protest is a matter of right and wrong. Destroying other people’s property, setting fires, and targeting innocent people are not okay, regardless of the cause.

Ultimately, this situation is a reminder of why many people are leaving the Democrat Party. The increasing acceptance and justification for violence and destruction are pushing those who still value peace, reason, and respect away from those who appear to be radicalized beyond repair. As more people recognize the difference between peaceful and violent protests, they align with those who stand for a more measured and respectful approach to political discourse. If leftists continue to condone and justify violence in the name of protest, they risk losing the support of many who once considered themselves part of their cause.