I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?
That depends entirely on the situation.
One thing we should note is that 99% of the time, critics will suggest that ANY protest tactics are "too aggressive." E.g. MLK Jr and Gandhi were both attacked for being "too extreme" or violating laws (ones they found to be unjust btw). Often, these accusations are made in bad faith, as the true intention is to make them and their movements go away.
Further, there's a long history of authorities infiltrating protest movements and using informants. In some cases, those infiltrators will encourage or participate in illegal behavior, sometimes to bolster their credibility, other times to discredit those movements.
Even complaints about minor damage are often raised in bad faith, as those same critics fail to acknowledge that riots after sporting events often cause more damage than many protests.
And of course, let's not forget that many of the critics are rank hypocrites. You can't defend the J6 insurgents or celebrate the Boston Tea Party, while insisting that protesters whose goals you disagree with are all violent paid crisis actors who crave illegitimate violence.
Ultimately, movements need to determine for themselves what actions will be effective, and that will change from one day to the next. What they can't do is allow critics acting in bad faith to decide what is, and is not, a legitimate protest.
P.S.: If you haven't done so already, I recommend you read MLK Jr's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." He discusses a few of these topics, and why activists shouldn't pay attention to those types of critics.
