Sorry but I think you’re vastly under representing the impact that peaceful protest leaders have had on social progress, and falsely equating peaceful pacifism and impotence. There are plenty of ways to be both uncompromising and caring. There are plenty of ways to be both politically effective and non-violent. There is a difference between pacifism and passivity. We can be the former without the latter.

I think there is a confusion in equating empathy with compromise, and compassion with unity. We can hold firm to our values, categorically and uncompromisingly denounce hate, and maintain a principle of non-violence all at once. To say we can’t is a false dichotomy.

No, we don’t need to 'hear their side of it' or 'try to consider their point-of-view’ in order to remain empathetic when they’re promoting hateful, divisive positions. That said there’s still a lot of middle ground between there and eschewing non-violence.

By all means, get angry, get loud, get active, all needed. Don’t promote violence, especially if you’re arguing against those who promote it themselves.