The BLM protests accomplished approximately nothing, and the violent (riot) part of them sapped a portion of the support that there was, so I'm not sure why you use this as a counterexample.

To me, it looks like an illustration of the point: the peaceful protests had immense potential to motivate change, but the potential was diminished somewhat by the associated violence, and what remained was squandered.

If we look at recent examples, almost everything that's worked is because of peaceful protest (where civil disobedience counts as "peaceful" as long as it's not damaging anything) and/or negotiation.

Examples from deeper in history--say, pre-1970s--are more varied, because there was a much larger appetite for viciousness and bigotry (while feeling noble and justified about it, no less).