I'm assuming we can agree 100% that good changes that come out of bad actions are still inherently good. We can probably also agree 100% that good changes that come without bad actions are even better, maybe after going down a side street of agreeing that this isn't always something that can or does happen.
Can't there be justice or lack thereof independently in both? If a positive change comes about as a result of a situation in which innocent people are harmed, we would agree that the positive change was good, and the harm to innocents was bad, I'm sure - that there's justice in the outcome but not in the trigger for it.
Here's the nitty-gritty stuff that caught my eye. Clinging to order because you have never known anything but is a completely understandable reaction, but you're going to have to understand that this man (and all supremacists like him) have been given literally every opportunity to not be huge, threatening pieces of shit yet have thrown it all away again and again. Things have been coming to a head like this precisely because the U.S. has been so tolerant of them, despite the lives and livelihoods at risk for their actions. Despite the lack of repercussions (which is why they keep seeing how far they can go). This is likely the first real repercussion he's had. So many of us have never known this peace, this "order", these fourth and fifth and eighteenth chances so maybe that's why we don't care as much? I don't know.
And because of this, it is endangering millions of already oppressed people further. People have literally died because of these Nazis, and they want to replicate WW2 style genocide. *Will* replicate WW2 style genocide if given the chance. Are closer than they have ever been in my lifetime with the incompetent piece of trash we have in the White House (and thank various deities he actually is incompetent, imagine if he was even reasonably intelligent and how much more damage he could do). He will get yet another chance as well, because he was able to walk away. I am genuinely hoping he uses this chance for good, but I also doubt it very much.
So basically, these people and their actions are all but indefensible, yet they are constantly being defended. Inhuman actions and inhumane agendas are pleading or demanding empathy and understanding from armchair analysts not under any real threat from these people. Even better, those people being threatened with death and violence are being tut-tutted for not engaging in "civil" discourse with them. For not literally risking their necks to teach them grade school tier human values. In the wake of a Trump presidency. In the wake of Charlottlesville, no less. These are literal terrorists who won't get called as such. Who by and large aren't going to be arrested, who aren't quite smart enough to realize how much more damage they can do by *not* outing themselves in public like so many others have figured out. And we have to deal with this in 2017. Will have to deal with it for years. Us with dark skin. Us lbgt+ers. Our friends and loved ones and family. Not you. Not really, anyway.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth on what you have and haven't personally done, but I can completely understand the concept of zero tolerance for these Nazi thugs and their "not-quite Nazi" sympathizers. You are almost certainly neither, but zero tolerance is zero tolerance in any case. Even giving them an iota of sympathy, an avenue of supposed discourse when they aren't even willing to take that first step is the real slippery slope fallacy here. You may disagree (I'm not sure how I personally feel about your demodding, to be frank), but I hope you at least understand.