When BLM were protesting, they weren't protesting something at the location they were blocking off, save for the GF Memorial Square Retard Zone they set up.
They didn't keep it to that area, in fact, they blocked traffic in the street in countries that had nothing to do with Africans let alone Americans.
This is directly outside of their construction zone. Where else were they supposed to eat? You can't eat on a live construction zone, so they had no choice.
Off the road to the side? Or at least only block off a single side of the road. Not creating a massive wall that prevents people who have nothing to do with what they're protesting from going about their day and lives.
Ah. No.
Everyone in Melbourne has to do with this protest, since the rules effect the entire Victorian population. Melbourne is mostly locked down atm because of Andrews' insane rules. They'll also be locked out of healthcare, clubs, jobs, pubs, restaurants, retail, travel and schools if unvaccinated. So "go about their daily lives" is disrupted completely by Andrews' insane edicts.
Everyone in Victoria is effected by this and no one's daily lives are allowed to go back to normal regardless. The protest mirrors the problem.
BLM protests were about disruption for a questionable social issue. Blocking streets for them was not in direct protest of an mirrorable action. It's a false dichotomy to equate the two.
Your logic is flawed because you based it on a false premise to begin with.
What I meant is that the people they're blocking on the street are not the people they're protesting against. The random dude in his car in the photo, for example, didn't enact a bunch of tyrannical bullshit so why is he getting fucked over? He's already having his day-to-day screwed by the tyrannical government so why is double screwing him by blocking the street the correct action in the situation? It's already hard enough for people to do anything without other people blocking the street.
Rules for thee but not for me is what this sounds like to me. The rules only apply when they're convenient. When they aren't they're simply ignored. Sounds like the exact same way BLM thinks.
We have rules and laws for a reason. Blocking the streets while protesting is either okay or not okay. The reason is irrelevant and the rules apply to everybody the same. If it's allowed then BLM blocking the streets is fine. The only remaining problem was the violent nature of their "protests'.
When BLM were protesting, they weren't protesting something at the location they were blocking off, save for the GF Memorial Square Retard Zone they set up. They didn't keep it to that area, in fact, they blocked traffic in the street in countries that had nothing to do with Africans let alone Americans.
This is directly outside of their construction zone. Where else were they supposed to eat? You can't eat on a live construction zone, so they had no choice.
Proximity ; Therefore, it's valid.
Off the road to the side? Or at least only block off a single side of the road. Not creating a massive wall that prevents people who have nothing to do with what they're protesting from going about their day and lives.
Ah. No. Everyone in Melbourne has to do with this protest, since the rules effect the entire Victorian population. Melbourne is mostly locked down atm because of Andrews' insane rules. They'll also be locked out of healthcare, clubs, jobs, pubs, restaurants, retail, travel and schools if unvaccinated. So "go about their daily lives" is disrupted completely by Andrews' insane edicts.
Everyone in Victoria is effected by this and no one's daily lives are allowed to go back to normal regardless. The protest mirrors the problem.
BLM protests were about disruption for a questionable social issue. Blocking streets for them was not in direct protest of an mirrorable action. It's a false dichotomy to equate the two.
Your logic is flawed because you based it on a false premise to begin with.
What I meant is that the people they're blocking on the street are not the people they're protesting against. The random dude in his car in the photo, for example, didn't enact a bunch of tyrannical bullshit so why is he getting fucked over? He's already having his day-to-day screwed by the tyrannical government so why is double screwing him by blocking the street the correct action in the situation? It's already hard enough for people to do anything without other people blocking the street.
Rules for thee but not for me is what this sounds like to me. The rules only apply when they're convenient. When they aren't they're simply ignored. Sounds like the exact same way BLM thinks.
We have rules and laws for a reason. Blocking the streets while protesting is either okay or not okay. The reason is irrelevant and the rules apply to everybody the same. If it's allowed then BLM blocking the streets is fine. The only remaining problem was the violent nature of their "protests'.
It's hard for you but hopefully when you grow up it gets worse.now run on home before its dark.