I am entirely against it and it is wrong. The resort to violence or to destruction against an opponent is wrong. The issues of the day are not to be resolved with violence but with the democratic process and debate.
My opposition extends to other malicious acts, such as using an organization's envelops to send back weighty objects to rack up charges. I am not going to go into a big theoretical definition of maliciousness, you know what it is when you see it. If you are working out a rational why it isn't, then probably it is malicious.
One negative of resorting to violence is that you invite retaliation in kind. I only mention this to those who can't be reasoned with in any other way. Violence also gives sympathy to your victim. Again, I mention this to those who can't be reasoned with in any other way.
Violence subverts society and the discussion of issues and is injury to another person.
I am not precluding self-defense, I someone is getting ready to throw a rock at a window, by all means act.
Also, I am not saying that if you say something appalling you should be granted immunity to other consequences. If you are saying something that people think is appalling they certainly have a right to say it is appalling. Logically, people will consider your fitness for a position or question your judgment. This opens up all sorts of questions which I am not going into.
I just want to make it clear that if someone is considering vandalism or violence I am not going to excuse it or rationalize it or do less than condemn it outright.
From time to time I will be stating an opposition to vandalism and violence to make it clear where I stand.